Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Bill Clinton Scandal - SANITY CHECK -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mrknowitall who wrote (10529)	10/21/1998 3:56:00 PM
From: jbe	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 67261

Mr. K, I totally agree with you that the fear is misplaced. (Thought I had made that clear.) It is just another example of what I was talking about in my previous post --an example of "paranoid style" thinking and/or rhetoric "oozing" into the general political discourse today. 2) Regarding "spin." Carville, you say? How about Rush Limbaugh, who has a much bigger permanent audience than Carville? As for the "media elite", I posted a piece some time back somewhere that argued that the "right wing" accounts for a large piece of it. (If you are interested, I'll try to hunt it down.) I am not trying to defend "my side" (whatever that is) against "your side (whatever that is). My only point is that we all have a tendency to see the "mote" in the other guy's eye while ignoring the "beam" in our own. 3) I again totally agree with you that the line between journalism (i.e., reporting and analysis) and commentary is becoming blurred. The phenomenon you describe is what we call "advocacy journalism." (IMO, in this respect, "right-wing" publications, like The Washington Times, are the biggest sinners of all.) But look on the bright side: the tradition of carefully balanced, carefully researched journalism is still holding its own. BTW, I am in a fortunate position, myself. I pick the subjects of my own analyses -- they are not "assigned" to me. Nobody tells me who to interview, or how to approach the subject. (Maybe because nobody gives a damn about my subject!) And I am by no means unique. 4) Again, I agree with you that many important subjects go uncovered. This is a problem that journalists themselves routinely complain about (see James Fallows' recent book on the subject, for example). It certainly drives me nuts. Some major event occurs: the demonstrations in Tienanman Square; the Gulf War; the Clinton-Lewinsky scandal....And that is ALL you will see on television (the worst sinner in this respect)! The rest of the world has come to a stop, or even to an end! Nothing is happening, except that one thing! Everybody piles on, like ten million football players onto one little football! (I should stop now -- I'm getting hysterical.) But this is not an example of the "PR" approach in journalism. If you want to be cynical about it, you can call it an example of "give them what sells newspapers" approach. If you do not want to be cynical, it is an example of the American tendency to go overboard, that is, to focus on one thing to the exclusion of everything else. :-) jbe

To: mrknowitall who wrote (10529)	10/21/1998 5:13:00 PM
From: Johannes Pilch	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 67261

>There was a big blowup in the Baptists when the ruling that women were to be something like "graciously submissive" to their husbands.< The blowup was illogical firstly because the "ruling" was merely a restatement of Biblical command, secondly because it was given by Southern Baptist leadership to Southern Baptist families and only to Southern Baptist families, the women of which are free to disobey the Church just as is anyone else, and thirdly because Christian submission is evidently an entirely different matter than worldly submission. I, as a Christian man, am indeed head of my home, and there is no doubt about it. As head of my home, my role is to do all I can to serve the needs of my wife and children. In effect, as Christ did for the Church, my role is to sacrifice my life for the well being of my family-to willingly give up the right of my life so as to benefit my wife and children. I have done this, and the natural response of my wife has been to graciously submit to my service. She does not lord her role over me, abusing me as I try to serve her. She instead seeks my best interests, knowing that in my whole being I want nothing but her best. I would rather die than lord my role over her, as such a thing would be antithetical to my goal. My wife graciously submits to me naturally, as a woman does when a gentleman hurries to a door to opens it for her, or when a gentleman gives his seat to a woman saying, "Please, madam. Have a seat." The feminist response here is to scowl and say, "Who are you to tell me what to do!!?" The lady, on the other hand, simply will say "Why thank you, sir." >Bet that went over really big in some homes! If I had been one of those Baptist husbands and had even hinted that things were going to change in my house I'd be looking out in the street for my belongings, and rightfully so.< . Well. If just by hinting that things were going the change in one's house one's wife would kick one into the streets, then it would appear the tensions in one's home are already much too great to produce any good. Of course, I detect you were here merely using hyperbole, and by no means are you to think my comments here are directed toward you. I say them to make a point. Mainly, that if a man desires to make changes in his home, he ought to have the freedom to approach his wife about his desires so that they can mutually arrive at a method to effect those changes. If a man has not even freedom to hint at the desire for change to his wife, then this is precisely the kind of marriage against which the Southern Baptists have taught. >The problem is, what is the threat? Did they marry a man that is going to take that literally and put them back into subservience?< No they did not, and this is not at all the desire of the Southern Baptist leadership. They merely wanted to reaffirm to Southern Baptist families that Southern Baptist men are to love their Southern Baptist wives as Christ loved the Southern Baptist Church (so much so, He died for it), and that Southern Baptist women should not buy into the stupidity of feminism and reject their Southern Baptist men, but graciously submit to their Southern Baptist service. >Are all men knuckle-dragging buffoons (no wait, don't answer that, yet!) and all women so easily intimidated?< No to the first, and the second is irrelevant.