Bladder Control And The Ability To Filter…Hmmm, I’ll Take “Things Old Folks Lack” For $800, Alec!

I certainly hope that by the time I’m 90 years old, I won’t be fired for opening my mouth and saying something bat-shit crazy as old folks tend to do.  Better yet, I hope my ass ain’t still working by then.  I’d  prefer to spend my last days visiting with folk and saying whatever the hell I want out my mouth without any compunction whatsoever.  Oh, wait…that’s what I already do!

Look, I don’t agree with Helen Thomas’ perspective on Israel.  Neither do I disagree with it. Quite frankly I’m not informed enough about the truth of what’s going on in the Middle East to have an opinion one way or the other.  But I defend Helen Thomas’ right, as a private citizen, to give her opinion about something without having to lose her job, unless, of course, she’s expatriated and is now living in China.  Truth is, weren’t there a whole gang of better reasons to fire someone so damn ancient than simply voicing her personal opinion.  I mean if she was really a problem, couldn’t we have force retired this crotchety old babe years and years and years….and years ago?  For crying out loud, she’s 114 years old.  At this point, she’s not even leaving fingerprints anymore.

Let’s just thank her for her 50 years of service, recognize that she can’t control her mouth, probably can’t control her bladder and let her retire peacefully with a storied, accomplished career as a bastion of journalism and a force to be reckoned with?

And lemme say one more thing about this bastion of American journalism…I hope someone has rescinded this nutty broad’s drivers license now that she ain’t got no job.  She just plain looks like someone who’d make us think she’s driving around the world to the left at 20 miles an hour in the fast lane of the freeway, blinker on full throttle the ENTIRE trip, straining to see over the dashboard and refusing to look out the rear view mirror at the parade of cars, piled up behind her like they’re following the white Bronco.


8 thoughts on “Bladder Control And The Ability To Filter…Hmmm, I’ll Take “Things Old Folks Lack” For $800, Alec!

  1. I was waiting for you to say EXACTLY what you said…cause when we start censoring old folks that’s when the world has jumped into the hand basket.

    Everyone jumped on the band wagon blasting an 89 year old about what she said when most (including myself) are not well versed enough to form an opinion about the subject.

    If you have lived for 89 years, you still can get up and leave the house, sorta put on some bright red lipstick don’t folks mostly ignore you when some crazy s*** comes out of your mouth?

    I would like to see the rest of the video and not just the piece they keep playing over and over again.

  2. From the clip, she sounds borderline anti-semetic (where would the jews in Israel go, back to Germany and the rest of Europe….oh yeah….like THAT’s going to happen) and she shows her ignorance of what has and is going on in the Middle East over the last 100 years.

    As a private citizen saying what she said, who cares, but as a well known washington journalist who sits on the front row and gets to ask questions to the president un-challenged by her peers,…… my favorite band “drowning pool” once said….LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR LET THE BODIES HIT THE FLOOR!!!!

    And Mrs. Carter’s body (her career) hit the floor HARD!!

    • Being a journalist doesn’t mean she doesn’t get to have a personal opinion. Most journalists are smart enough to keep their personal opinion private during their active careers since objectivity lends itself to one’s credibility. But at 89, let’s be honest, she’s no more a serious Washington journalist than I am. She’s more an icon than anything else. But I agree with you that if we’re going to have folks with a platform tossing words about irresponsibly, then let’s just remove her platform to spread nonsense. (Let’s do the same for Rush Limbaugh while we’re at it) She does have a higher duty to care to represent even her opinions as factually as possible. Good thing I don’t have that same concern!

      I am uncomfortable seeing how we’re reacting to her, though. It is, at the end of the day, her opinion. And you know how I feel about that!

      As Evelyn Beatrice Hall said describing the stance of Voltaire – ”I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”

      • I really don’t care about her one way or another, although I do admit I like it that she’s gone (albiet 20 years past due). Let someone else get a chance to sit in the front row.

        As for Rush Oxycontin….well, he’s on marriage no. 4 and Elton John is singing at his wedding……proving that he’s full of hot air to the point that we should drill him and make him part of the natural gas infrastructure.

  3. Well ya know, when it comes to Palestine, there are two sides to the coin and it’s amazing, absolutely amazing, that Helen could sit in the front row like that, year after year, crotchety as she has been, and NOT say what she was thinking on the inside … hmmm … the good old-fashioned commitment of a journalist to not MAKE the news, perhaps? That’s what I think. She’s always been a pro. So, in her 80s, in an off-guard moment, someone asks what she really thinks and wham … turns out it doesn’t fit the mold. In the USA, “committment to Israel” seems to mean “I’ve got your back,” and expressing anything less than 100% committment to Israel is characterized as anti-Semitic. As long as no one examines that, few distinctions can be made between what is and is not justified about Israel’s actions in the Middle East and anyone who questions (as Helen does) the status quo can be (to coin a phrase) crucified. As an example, let’s say. The place is a tinderbox and everyone’s lighting matches.

    How long have we sought “peace in the Middle East?” Forever. How much progress has been made? Zero. Problem: an entire Arab nation was displaced at the stroke of a pen. Not everyone agrees that this is the heart of the “problem” in the Middle East and certainly those nations would look at the West with suspicion even if there were no Israel — we still would be “the crusaders” in their cultural history. But this particular wound has festered and turned poison in the body. In the name of Palestine a thousand atrocities have been committed, supposedly in protest, so that now it’s impossible to untangle the Palestine “question” from any issue west of the Ganges river and east of the Canary Islands, and anywhere south of the Russian steppes. If anyone raises this question from the Palestinian point of view, it is treated almost as treason.

    But consider for a moment another oldster who once found it necessary not to hold his tongue. To wit:

    On 31 January 1970, [Bertrand] Russell issued a statement which condemned Israeli aggression in the Middle East and called for Israeli withdrawal from territory occupied in 1967. The statement said that:

    The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was “given” by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled in masses from their own country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East. We are frequently told that we must sympathise with Israel because of the suffering of the Jews in Europe at the hands of the Nazis. […] What Israel is doing today cannot be condoned, and to invoke the horrors of the past to justify those of the present is gross hypocrisy.[43]
    —Bertrand Russell, 31 January 1970

    This was Russell’s final political statement or act. It was read out at the International Conference of Parliamentarians in Cairo on 3 February 1970, the day after his death.

    Now, be this view helpful or not, or even germane to the problem as it exists today, I would point out simply: it is useful to remember we are talking about real people and from time to time takes a blunt statement from some old warhorse or another is a good thing, if only to throw cold water in the faces of the plump, the pompous and the powerful.

    I think Sarah Palin should make a statement on this. LOL.

    • I 100% agree that in order to have resolution in any conflict all parties must be free to express their perspectives without fear of retribution. We find it tremendously difficult as Americans to allowed variety in our viewpoints. If we don’t agree with gay marriage, then we must be homophobic. If we don’t support AZ immigration legislation, we must be pro-illegal immigration. If we don’t agree 100% with Israel on everything they do, then we must be anti-semitic. How can we ever find common ground if our primary goal seems to polarize everything into two and only two polemically opposed, mutually exclusive viewpoints.

      Unfortunately, I’ve had the luxury of remaining completely ignorant about the crisis in the Middle East in its modern form. I’ll have to do some work to develop my own understanding but I do know that I am disinclined to support any viewpoint that displaces peoples. I’ll post an opinion once I’ve had a chance to do some research. That said, I do know that sending Jews “back somewhere” makes as little sense to me as displacing Palestinians from where they live to begin with. As a black person in America, I’m not that inclined to enjoy the “send ’em back” approach since I’ve been told Africa is a nice place to visit but I haven’t been back since I left 600 years ago.

      I, for one, feel that we’re under increased pressure to resolve this conflict as quickly as possible…now that you’ve opened the floor for Sarah Palin to say something. If she speaks, I blame you.

      p.s. love the Bertrand Russell guiding principles – love, knowledge, empathy. hmmmm….not unlike most major religions…

  4. I turned this comment into a blog. And while I was thinking about it (all three seconds), I realized this problem will take the greatest force of human goodwill ever mustered in the history of the species to resolve. For all parties must “give,” to get. The greatest achievement in history — bar none — would be for Israelis and Palestinians to co-exist in a single territory (I don’t know if that should be “state” or what). And just plain quit killing each other.

    Interesting to me is: Russell’s statement of principle applies equally to foreign invasion of the Native American territory. Should we all go back to where we came from?

    The only possible direction is forward. Forget the past.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s