Losing Helen Thomas

by Rachel Sklar | 4:46 pm, June 7th, 2010

I put off watching the Helen Thomas video all weekend. Couldn’t watch.

Of course, I’d seen the headlines. I knew that the gist of it was her telling Israelis to ‘go back to Germany and Poland.’ When I first saw the headlines I thought, “There must be some mistake” – knowing, of course, what had happened to the Jews of Germany and Poland. It’s hard to hear the words “The Jews of Germany and Poland” and not think of anything but the millions and millions of Jews who were incarcerated, enslaved, tortured, starved and exterminated in the Holocaust.

There really couldn’t be any mistaking such a comment. Even with the best possible spin, it was…revealing. And it revealed something about Helen Thomas that I didn’t want to see.

Look, Helen Thomas is a hero to many, and up until a few days ago, that included me. She was a tough, tenacious woman pushing forward in journalism eras ahead of a time when it was commonplace for women to do so. During the Bush Administration, she sat there at the front of the briefing room, asking uncomfortable questions about two difficult wars. She sparred memorably with more than one press secretary. She cameo’d in Stephen Colbert’s now-legendary White House Correspondents Dinner gig. Did she have an agenda? Hell yeah. But she was a columnist, for one thing, and a legend, for another. For those who watched the goings-on in the White House briefing room, she was a welcome fixture — for coming on fifty years — understood to belong in that front row by dint of seniority, achievement and being one hell of a character.

Today, just months shy of her 90th birthday, that all ended. She resigned abruptly from the her longtime position with Hearst — and thus from her longtime seat in the White House briefing room, and said in a statement: “I deeply regret my comments I made last week regarding the Israelis and the Palestinians.”

I do, too. Because with those comments, we lost an icon. Because all of the foregoing — being the first female officer of the National Press Club, the first female member of the White House Correspondents Association — and its first female president — none of that is enough to give her a pass.

It’s not enough to have spent a lifetime being an awesome, trailblazing journalistic and feminist icon. Because longer still than the shadow cast by such a great career is the one cast by the Holocaust. There are still people living in this country — and many others, not the least of which is Israel — who have numbers tattooed on their arms from concentration camps. People who remember seeing their mothers or fathers or brothers or sisters torn away from them and packed on trains taking them to their deaths. People who couldn’t go back to where their families came from in Germany or Poland even if they wanted to, because entire villages were wiped out.

So, yes, Helen Thomas took it way too far in suggesting Jews in Israel go home to Germany and Poland. Because there is only one reason they left that home in the first place. That doesn’t mean it’s not a damn shame. That she said it, yes — I’ve heard more than a few people lament that if she’d just retired sooner, or held out a little longer. But even sadder is that she could think that to say it, knowing what she knows about history and the history of this country (it was just the anniversary of D-Day, after all), working in an industry that trades in facts and information. And saying that Israel should “get the hell out of Palestine” not only ignores the legitimate history of a legitimate nation, but makes it pretty clear where her bias lies. That such comments were made before the flotilla incident — at a White House event celebrating the contributions of Jewish Americans for Jewish Heritage Month, no less — make them that much more troubling.

Ah yes. About that flotilla incident. Would Helen Thomas have been castigated so thoroughly without that backdrop? Well, yes, probably — see the above. What the flotilla incident did, though, was trigger a major surge of outrage — and, if we are honest, of other stuff. There has been criticism of Israel; there has been holding Israel to an arguably higher standard than other nations (see: North Korea) and there has been anti-Israel sentiment, blurred in with…a little more. What Helen Thomas said was at the upper end of that category — and I think, frankly, it startled a lot of people. Because that’s one hell of a slippery slope.

I wish Helen Thomas hadn’t said those things, and I truly wish she hadn’t thought them. But she did. Which means that, sad as I am, Helen Thomas can no longer be a hero to me.

Jim Dandy: Helen Thomas is an anti-Semite. I don't see how anyone can consider a racist a hero. You need to find new forums. She has a history of Antisemitism. You ok with that?

Helen Thomas! Who cares?
Ralph Kinney Bennett
Helen Thomas! Who cares?

I was an accredited White House correspondent from 1966 to 2001. During that time and long since, I have known many to suffer Helen Thomas, but nobody to take her seriously.

She's a joke. Can anyone really remember anything she has said or written? No. Of course not.

She was a sort of weird press room mascot, trotted out for her embarrassing question to the President ritual while colleagues groaned inwardly and stared at their shoes to hide their rolling eyes. She was like one of those never-was-a-firemen, who hang around the fire house, becoming a fixture by default, indulged or humored over the years unless or until the nuisance factor gets too high.

Her splenetic Jew-bashing was the most attention she has ever received other than the phony adulation and awards garnered from time to time from bored fellow journalists who realized that, "My God, she's still around."

I don't know why everyone got so animated. It was Helen Thomas, for crying out loud. Whatever she did - whatever came off her keyboard or out of her mouth - was like a bear defecating in the woods. Few have seen it and few would care to. Boy, if ever there was a candidate for one of P.J. O'Rourke's "pre-obituaries!"

(V):   I didn't think you could come up with an example.  Proves you were wrong and I am right. 

(V):  Maybe they decide not to have kids so then I guess it's ok with you.

Good to know that I'm not alone in my concern on the overuse of the term racism. It gets too much play today. Some think that the debate is over once you charge someone with being a racist. It's not so. Calling a duck a pig doesn't make it a pig. A duck is a duck. Racism is racism.

Misuse of the terms dishonors real victims of racism. Some have claimed that disagreeing with Obama is racism. The claim is that people who disagree with Obama's policies do so not because of legitimate disagreement, but because they don't want to see a black man succeed. How stupid.

As one blogger put it: "But today, the term racism has been misused and abused to the point where there is a real risk of a complete devaluing of the term. This would be a huge disservice to those who have or are experiencing the impact of true racism."

The blogger referenced Rep. Joe Wilson’s “You lie” outburst and how one senator called the remark racist. One can disagree with a person of color without being a racist. And calling Obama a liar is not racist. This is particularly true because in this instance, Obama was lying. A white lie but a lie all the same. BTW, Maureen Dowd, a NY Times columnist posted an opinion piece that came right out and said that Joe Wilson's comment was all about racism. She needs to read her history book and discover all the things that have been said about past presidents. Wilson's comment was tame next to some others. Even that baffoon Jimmy Carter is throwing out the racism charge. Was there ever a more inept President than Carter? Good thing he's white so I can say he's a buffoon. If he were black, I'd be labeled a racist.

A philosophy professor wrote a book on this very subject: I'm Not a Racist, But...: The Moral Quandary of Race (Paperback)
~ Lawrence Blum

Here's an excerpt from a review.

"From Booklist
The term racism has been so overused that it is in danger of losing its moral significance, according to philosophy professor Blum, who argues for clearer, more precise use of the word and related terminology. Blum examines related concepts and terms --institutional racism, personal racism, racist, racist beliefs--and their interplay as he explores the moral implications of racism on a multiplicity of levels."

It's exactly what I am saying, and I am right. The term racism is so overused that when some hear it (like me) they just shake their head and say, "Here we go again."

Maybe Griffin is a legitimate racist. But just because some pinhead carelessly throws that label at him doesn't make it so. No matter how much any of you protest to the contrary. Maybe what you think is racism is really your own ignorance at play. At least that's how I read it when people are so irresponsible with such a lethal charge. Perhaps those that carelessly level the charge are a bit bigoted themselves. Either that or intellectual cripples.

Übergeek 바둑이: So many people throw out the "racism" charge for so many non-racist things, when I hear someone throw out that charge I don't take them seriously. Racism is a particular thing. If true racism encompasses all the things that some have imagined, we are all racists. No one is exempt. And the leaders of the pack may just be the Black leaders, according to the definition they use.

I know racism is real and exists today. But not everything can be labeled racism. It's done too easily these days and frankly those that so easily throw out that charge perpetuate the difficulties between the races. Some people want racism to exist so that they have a cause to fight against.

(V): Racist is a cheap term these days. I've seen real racism. What's tossed about these days as racism doesn't even come close. It's just a convenient way of minimizing the opposition. Little more than a cheap shot.

All I'm saying is Griffin was a stand up guy for agreeing to take the heat in an environment that clearly was him against the rest. He didn't hide under his desk like some do.

Too bad he had to complain about the "fairness" of the forum. Politicians need to learn to take their lumps and not whine about it.

Snoopy: I just finished watching the whole thing. He's no idiot that's clear. Not many people could sit there for an hour and take fiery question after fiery question. He did make some points that even some in the audience recognized as legitimate (even if they disagreed with his remedy).

His appearance was necessary as the BNP has gained strength and it's time to put them in the public eye for scrutiny. Only face to face encounters such as Question Time could provide the kind of exposure and tough questioning that was witnessed on the program.

What caught me was the fact that Griffin was talking about some of the very same issues that we face here in the States. The UK had better deal effectively with it's immigration problems or soon enough it will get out of hand and become uncontrollable. Perhaps it's already too late for that. From some reports I've seen, London has some serious problems with some in the Islamic community. Such problems can't long be ignored.

I wonder if Iran has an immigration problem?

Griffin certainly has to been given some credit to face the fire. The entire audience and all on the panel were against him. I wish we could get some of Obama's people on a show like that and expose them for who they really are.

Bwild:

Jim Dandy:

Bwild:  And eating chips and twinkies too!

Bernice: Isn't it rich that the ones that designed the system that got us into this mess are the same ones designing the system to getting us out!

Snoopy: This is exactly the case in the US it seems. It seems that in politics, you have two sides of a one sided coin. A bit of a contradiction I know. But that's politics: They tend to live in a world of contradiction. They live in a world of villainous demons - most of which tend to be mere shadows. Politicians like to make things up. And many people, it seems, are programmed to accept what they hear. Much like in the era of McCarthyism, most of the villains are simply made up by the politicians to keep their side in the advantage, as opposed to the other. A bit of a tug-of-war, politics style.

And of course, most politicians have no idea of peoples' real needs or what to do about problems except to make up some strange promises that in the end, will never work. And on it goes.

(V):  I didn't ask for any of that nonsense.  I simply asked what others thought of the idea.  I made no comment on either side of the issue.  I simply shared a link and asked what others thought.  Obviously I was asking what was thought of the idea of selling government assets to get out of debt.  That's the question. 

Frankly, it sounds like both our governments are a bunch nitwits when it comes to financial matters. 

Bernice:  

Government’s £16bn sale of public assets causes cross-party anger

Brown announces £16 billion asset sell-off

Brown unveils £16bn assets sale

British PM Brown to announce assets sell-off

And notice my question  "So what do UKers think of this idea?"

Besides, I wasn't making a statement.  I was asking for opinions on the UKs strategy.  But all V offered was an ad hominem. 

Most stories that get covered by Fox don't get covered by the other cables or networks (exception is CNN that does a fair job...but only fair).  Since the majority of viewers watch Fox, then it follows that the complainers are in the minority.  And we all know that when you don't have an counter argument, just attack Fox with sarcasm and make unsubstantiated claims against them.  Or in this case, just make stuff up. 

And to be clear, two of the above sources were used by Fox news in their report.  One was the BBC. 

Bernice:  He musta missed that part. 

Pedro Martínez: 

Czuch:   I noticed your absense.  You haven't missed much.  Don't read anything with a "V:" at the beginning.     Most of my posts are their usual par excellence.   So if you've read mine, you're caught up.  lol

BTW, I did a search on MSNBC regarding the Nobel PP and couldn't find anything except positive stories of support.  The net is crawling with negative stories on how stupid this is (giving the award to an undeserving recipient).   Even some prominent people are saying how bogus it is. 

Oh yeah, Fox covered both sides of the argument.  MSNBC only the supportive side for Obama, NBC pretty much the same, and CNN did a pretty good job of a balance.

And did you see where the White House has basically declared war on FOX?   That will so backfire on them.  What a bunch of dolts.  I can't wait to see Fox's ratings go up on this one.  Gotta give the WH credit:  They probably just booted Fox's viewership by the thousands.  Nice strategy. 

Übergeek 바둑이:   I'm not blaming Obama.  I'm just saying that the award is bogus.  Anyone celebrating his winning are not thinking clearly.   Many, like me, are simply pointing out that for an award to hold true meaning, it ought to be truly deserved and based on actual merit. 

(V):  It's coming. 

• Handheld Cell Phone Bans for All Drivers: 6 states
  (California, Connecticut, New Jersey, New York, Oregon and Washington),
  the District of Columbia and the Virgin Islands prohibit all drivers from talking on handheld cell phones while driving.
  
  • With the exception of Washington State, these laws are all primary enforcement—an officer may ticket a driver for using a handheld cell phone while driving without any other traffic offense taking place.
  
  
  

Ferris Bueller:  Not maybe it was premature, it WAS premature.  What could he possibly have done his first 12 days in office to even merit a nomination?

A huge majority of people share my position on this matter.  It's a farce.  It makes about as much sense as giving Hitler a Humanitarian of the Year award.   An award is only meaningful if it's actually deserved.

(V):McCain is just making a political statement.  If he really believes that we ought to celebrate when an undeserved award is given, he's an idiot.  SNL got it right.

Artful Dodger:  I don't mind him getting  the award but it would have been nice to see that he actually did something for it.  It's just another example of how meaningless this President is.  Things are not good here and all he seems to do is blame Bush.  I wonder how long he'll play that "I inherited a mess" card?

Bernice:   There's another  skit where they lampooned the news and announced the "premature" awarding of the Heisman Trophy to a high schooler, the Miss America Pagent winner to a 5th grader.  lol

One Obama offical said that the award is an acknowledgement of Obama's likely accomplishments.   In other words, Obama has done nothing to deserve this award, but it's likely he will deserve it in the future.

They must think the average person is stupid.  about 85% of those polled say Obama did nothing to deserve such an award.  Worse is that he was only in office 12 days when he was nominated.  Idiots.

Übergeek 바둑이:  Your fourth interpretation does seem the most plausible, considering what else we know of history and how governments often encourage one government over another to keep the lessor one in check.  But that interpretation still validates my point.  Such approaches never fully work in the long run.  They are the wimpy way out.  And there were many signs that such an approach to Germany was akin to letting a tiger out of its cage.

As for Chamberlin, he clearly was weak in his approach to Hitler.  When a country such as Germany, makes a promise and then breaks it, then makes another and breaks that one too, it's not rocket science to figure out that there's a fox in the hen house.  

As for: "They appeased Hitler because they hated communists more than they hated Nazis.  It was a simple as that."

Nothing in world politics is ever simple. 

Bwild:It's a Chinese proverb.  Here's Proverbs 26: 4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
       or you will be like him yourself.

(V): I've noticed that when your arguments are weak, you always resort to claiming things that were never said.  Better would be to form that statement into a question.  And try to avoid leading questions.  Those are easy to spot as well.

(V):  Chamberlin was a fool and history has proven that.  He took the wimpy way out.  History has shown over and over that when it comes to thugs, diplomacy doesn't work.  Show us where it has.  But brute force does work.  Germany was toppled that way as was Japan.  Hitler could have been stopped early if the governments weren't so wimpy about war. 

Bwild:I heard that !  lol

GTCharlie:  We need Regan again.

GTCharlie:  Yeah.  And get this.  Right after the award was announced, the US made a preemptive strike against the MOON!!!!  Well, the award was for international peace and not interstellar. 

Twiigs poll:  91% said NO

Huffington Post:  45% said yes.  That's odd since it's a far left website. 

Another poll had 73% saying NO that others were more deserving.

A time poll shows 51% say NO. 

There will be more polls.  It will be interesting to see those as well. 

(V): I didn't say that.  I said butterflys eat pizza.  extra cheese

(V): I love this comment:  Obama getting the Nobel for his international groveling is comparable
to Nevile Chamberlain having received it (which he didn't) for signing
Britain over to the Nazis with the stroke of a pen

(V):  That's not the point.  It's a peace prize.  Where's the peace?  It's a meaningless thing at this point.  What will they all say when Obama steps up the war in Afghanistan? 

Even Dr., Lamont Hill, PH.D is disappointed with Obama getting the Prize.  For him to be against the Prize going to Obama speaks volumes.  Hill likes Obama and is just a tad short of being a cheerleader for him. 

The Prize should be renamed to The Joke. 

(V):  Well, the Prize was given to a known terrorist too so I guess since anyone can get one, even a do nothing like Obama can get one too.

Someone else writes his speech, he delivers it, and he gets a prize.  That speech writer better get a cut. 

(V):For one, President Sarkozy thinks he's a wimp. 

"Let me be clear: I do not view it as a recognition of my own accomplishments, (ummmm...what accomplishments??) but rather as an affirmation of American leadership on behalf of aspirations held by people in all nations. To be honest, I do not feel that I deserve to be in the company of so many of the transformative figures who've been honored by this prize." _ Obama.

"I think it's extremely well deserved. ... I think it will take some time before people put together all the different moves that linked his speech at the U.N. on the abolishing of nuclear weapons, his shift on the missile defense program in Eastern Europe and the movement of Russia to joining the international consensus that confronted Iran to abide by the nonproliferation treaty." _ Former Vice President Al Gore.

"The real question Americans are asking is, 'What has President Obama actually accomplished?' It is unfortunate that the president's star power has outshined tireless advocates who have made real achievements working towards peace and human rights." _ Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele.

"I'm not sure what the international community loved best; his waffling on Afghanistan, pulling defense missiles out of Eastern Europe, turning his back on freedom fighters in Honduras, coddling Castro, siding with Palestinians against Israel, or almost getting tough on Iran. The world may love it, but following in the footsteps of Jimmy Carter is not where America needs to go." _ Rep. Gresham Barrett, R-S.C.

"Giving this award to the leader of the most militarized country in the world, which has taken the human family against its will to war, will be rightly seen by many people around the world as a reward for his country's aggression and domination." _ Mairead Corrigan Maguire, a 1976 Nobel Peace Prize recipient.

"What the......?" AD, member of Brainking.com

(V):The point, which it seems so easily missed your grasp (once again) is that he was nominated when he was virtually a nobody, hadn't done anything worthy even of consideration.  So why would someone nominate him in the first place?  May as well nominate Mickey Mouse.

Pedro Martínez: Well he's promised to close Guantonimo...well, that's on hold now.  Likely it won't close as planned.  According to CNN, "President-elect Barack Obama plans to order the closing of the U.S.
military prison at Guantanamo Bay as early as his first week in office
to show a break from the Bush administration's approach to the war on
terror, according to two officials close to the transition."

Well? 

Most world leaders see Obama as a wimp. 

(V):  I know the math.  He did nothing to get nominated and he's done nothing to deserve such an award.  It makes a mockery of the true meaning of the award.  It has been made meaningless.  In his first 12 days, Obama basically went to a party, went to a few meetings, skipped church twice, release federal funding to pay for abortions in foreign countries, partied some more.  Oh yeah, that deserves a nomination for sure.