tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post2214894645910710261..comments2024-03-15T00:12:57.489-07:00Comments on Covenant Zone: The Times, It is a Changin'truepeershttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16401984575637492845noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-80772844597369187272008-08-03T11:09:00.000-07:002008-08-03T11:09:00.000-07:00Geez,I go away for a few days to find more new, ne...Geez,<BR/><BR/>I go away for a few days to find more new, newish words...<BR/><BR/>How about Ospama; or B. Obulla? Break (grey) momma?truepeershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16401984575637492845noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-60632142232756376312008-07-30T15:51:00.000-07:002008-07-30T15:51:00.000-07:00Peers often points out that Man cannot be objectiv...Peers often points out that Man cannot be objective in the material world we live in, and that newspapers shouldn't even pretend to try to be objective, given not only that it is practically impossible but also, and more to Peers' point, that it's not a good political or social idea to try to be and hence to pretend to be "objective." The problem is, to use an anecdote, like me as a boy trying to play chess with myself, not having anyone who would bother to learn the game to beat me easily at no cost. I would play both sides of the game, and though I would often favor one side, I would then make an effort to compensate by favoring the other. But I always won. So it must be with "objective reporting." <BR/><BR/>Peers most often goes for a dialectical approach to essay writing, while I go for polemics, neither of which are attempts at "objectivity." When one obviously abandons all hope of what we might term "balance," then one is aware straight away of the position of the point. There's no attempt to trick the listener. The New York Times, as Peers might argue, pretends to be balanced. Or they did. No longer. But neither are they writing polemics these days but rather sheer propobama. It's nothing short of outrageous and insulting to the average reader. Rather than state, as Peers argues in favor of, a clear stance and open that one is a "faction" paper and everyone knows it, everyone can accept it as it is, and all can expect some fair treatment of the exposition in the marketplace of ideas even if they are presented only to bolster ones own point, party and faction papers try to pretend without hope of success that they are "objective" and fair, which the Times is so far from these black day of ours that one can only sneer at the pretense. Honest reporting is to honestly admit that one is an honest partisan. The New York Times, and mmost others in America today, do not follow through on that, which is lovely for us in that people are disgusted by the MSM and come to blogs for honest bias and partisanship written fairly against the evil Satanists and dog-kicking liberals who cheat their mothers out of their old age payments. But that's me being dialectical, against my better judgment. <BR/><BR/>We often too write about Gnosticism, politics as an elitist pursuit of Philosopher Kings acting in a state of apocalyptic vision. Peers is too good at this for me to muddy the waters with more, but the sense is there and valuable just in the mention. The New York Times and assorted Left dhimmi fascists would be insulting to us if we only held their esteem in any regard. That they despise us is beneath our contempt. Thus, as they go further into self-righteous contempt and impending bankruptcy, they hate us all the more for ignoring their mystic vision. Ta ta, losers. <BR/><BR/>Osama Barka. What madness are we in for? We'll know when we see the results of our dhimmi elites in effect in Nov.Daghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10664271893389366772noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-25624602.post-57368164653753792742008-07-30T13:21:00.000-07:002008-07-30T13:21:00.000-07:00Hmm..It's funny, we seemed to have written our pie...Hmm..<BR/>It's funny, we seemed to have written our pieces at the same time, independantly of each other, yet in an intriguing way they compliment each other rather well. <BR/><BR/>The New York Times is determined to preach to the choir, and the echo is killing them. Their gimmick, decades ago, was that they were to appeal to as many people of as many political stripes as possible. Not unbiased, just well-rounded. <BR/><BR/>When was the last time that could be said of them..?Charles Henryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18168475254263681673noreply@blogger.com