At least one can discuss the issue that Jebbie brings up--whether or not someone has the capacity to fulfill the job at that age. I don't think so personally; I feel I'd be lucky to be able to shave my face at the age of ninety.

Your capabilities at the age of 90 are not the issue, omooex.

Do you believe Helen lacks the capabilities and qualifications to perform the job she has? If not, please be specific and tell us why you believe she isn't qualified or capable of doing her job.

The question for me is how does she have this job, and why couldn't anyone else do it? Really, ask yourslef, why there's only one person who asks these questions. AND REALLY ASK YOURSELF WHY THEY ALLOW HER TO! Jeezus, don't we talk here everyday at how well-selected the White House Press Corps is...

How does she have this job? She earned the job many years ago, long before it was fashionable for women to have jobs like this, and her performance since has not fallen off. There isn't only one person who could ask these questions, omooex, but right now, Helen is just about the only one who does ask the tough questions and unless you can name someone who could step right in and do her job better than she's doing it, why do you believe she should be given the heave ho?

I don't think you're being sexist about this, omooex. I do think you have a warped view of what a person of age can and cannot do, but I think you would have the same view regardless of whether we were discussing a male or a female. Your view, regardless, is wrong and for us geezers, is rather noxious. Geezers have feelings, too.

By the way, Helen isn't 90 years old. She is a mere 88 years young...and if I'm as healthy as she is if I ever get to be 66, I'll be happy as a clam.

Give it up.

Last episode, Our Hero:

"No offense...

No offense...

I don't mind you getting mad, I suppose if the tables were turned, I might also skip a few graphs in the comment to find the things that really made my blood boil."

This episode:

Are you serious?

I was relating an experience I had 40 years ago.

The world has changed enormously since then, especially data processing wise.

I didn't mean to offend you.

Glenn,

Just wanted to recount an incident about IET vs "torture" between me and HuffPo.

In this story:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/07/02/us-says-it-will-preserve-_n_225306.html

the following got to me:

where a defendant in a terror case was once held and, his lawyers say, subjected to harsh interrogation techniques...

I got a bit testy in my comment: (I'm paraphrasing here for reasons that will quickly become obvious)

Please HuffPo: Do not pull an Alicia Shepard on us with the spinelss euphemism EIT. The proper word is torture!

I later went back to the web page to realize that my post had been pulled...erased, zaaap!!

To which I couldn't resist replying:

Thank you for censoring what was a rather benign post. Given the actual debate about the use of the word "torture" and its systematic avoidance by the MSM, I thought the Huffington Post was different.

Stupid me!

(sigh!) Cowardice is definitely an infectious disease.

There is a standard which defines torture, and methods which constitute torture:

The law.

And she's right: there are two sides of the law: that of obediance to it; and that of violating it. But there's no debate as to which side one is to be on, and what does constitute torture. Waterboarding has been defined as torture for about as long as it's been used. Except at NPR.

Now, why would NPR call it torture when Iraqi Arabs (actual or perceived) torture, but not when the US does it? And not when Israel does it?

Pure coincidence, of course: NPR knows torture when it sees it; and doesn't know it when it sees it.

Has anyone confronted this obbudsman yet with the words "intellectually dishonest"? News bias which puts some above and beyond the rule of law, but not others?

I was thinking she's a creep. Well, she is creeping right-wing.

I noted that I thought 74 was a good cut off point. I know plenty of people who are 66 and do just as well in every regard as when they were forty. I've written that here before. Christ, do you really think a 40 year old man who is currently attending a college class with all 18 year olds could possibly be as ageist as you think?

I don't think I made my point about age as well as I could have. So I'll add a bit to it, which you can take or leave. I suppose for me its not just an issue of age, its an issue of how our society creates a spectacle around our leaders. There is only one Helen Thomas, or Martin Luther King, Malcolm X or etcetera, so they have to occupy their space of leadership or activity until the day they die. I mean, why would we create two, three, or even five press seats in the White House Press corps when we have Thomas? Frankly, for one, I've never been very impressed with her, and I should be able to say that without the ceiling caving in. It doesn't mean I wish her ill or anything. And its frankly idiotic that I have to say that.

We all know that there are thousands of people who could do it. Its a ceremonial leftist press seat, and that should bother you, no matter what you think of Thomas' capacity. She may have gotten it and held it through merit, but its obvious that she's part of a spectacle of integrity there more than anything else. I mean, how does she hold on to this press seat? What arcane magics is she wielding on the White House?

Anywho. I'm sure people will pull all kinds of horrifying things out of this post as well.