Layoffs at L.A. Times — Tim Rutten Gone
Can’t say I’m too devastated. After all the dishonest nonsense that guy pulled over the years, it’s about time.
UPDATE: Commenter angeleno says I lack “grace” over this event. He is right. I have left the following comment:
angeleno,
I have re-thought your comments and I was wrong. Wrong to exult in Rutten’s layoff. Some of the things he wrote did not aid the search for the truth but we are all human. I would rather not be someone who derives joy from another’s pain, and so grace it is.
Whither Hiltzik, the ultimate lying and unethical douche in California media?
Ed from SFV (7d7851) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:09 pmCan he get a gig here as a part time troll?
the bhead (a31060) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:10 pmSweet. 99 weeks of funemployment. He can go kayaking every day and sign up for poetry therapy with medicare.
Socialism is really only a problem if you’re a taxpayer.
Actually, this sucks. I wish the LAT would take the obvious path to relevance and strive to be a fair source of information. Idiots.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:13 pmI’m told Hiltzik is still there.
Patterico (f724ca) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:16 pmElsewhere, the Buss family is popping champagne corks with abandon as they have just been rid of a man who played it straight, with intelligence, and called it straight – Mark Heisler.
Ed from SFV (7d7851) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:21 pmthere once was a hack name of rutten
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:22 pmmendacious douchnozzle darn tootin’
they gave him the axe
too loose with The Facts
his scribblings just so much poot-pootin’
Again?
Scott Jacobs (d027b8) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:32 pmWhat are his examples of dishonesty?
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:35 pmThis seems appropriate for the LAT.
Ejercito, one example..
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 6:40 pm__________________________________________
I’m told Hiltzik is still there.
Well, hold some of the champagne.
Hiltzik helps give a crappy aura to the business section, because along with his fame (or infamy) as a sockpuppet, isn’t he even more nonsensically leftist than Tim Rutten is? In a similar vein, the paper’s columnist in Sacramento often gives a foolish tilt to the goings-on in state government.
I wouldn’t feel quite so sarcastic about such people and the ridiculous one-sided bias that drips from almost every main page of the LA Times on a regular basis if the paper had a corresponding set of columnists, essayists or contributors from the right, or even the true center. For example, when the very skilled conservative political cartoonist Michael Ramirez was a regular part of the op-ed page.
Mark (411533) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:04 pmNot much grace in your world, is there?
angeleno (94f48b) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:29 pmWhat’s the purpose of a journalist that doesn’t tell the truth?
Tell me why such a person should remain a journalist at all?
This liberal bias has led to so much ignorance. It’s corrosive to society. It leads to despotism.
Sorry, but it’s a very good thing when dishonest journalists are terminated. It’s like when a filthy cook is terminated, or when a drunk taxi driver is terminated, or when a pervert teacher is terminated.
The LAT has lost its way long ago, and because it’s of less and less value to readers, it’s not making enough money to employ as many liars. I posted a link above to a reader explaining that.
It’s a shame you don’t see this.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:34 pmWho are you talking to, angeleno?
Patterico (4a5233) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:38 pmif one dirty socialist propaganda whore journalist lost their job for every oil worker our coward president has thrown out of work we’d be well on our way to making journalism a respectable profession in America
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:39 pmWill Tim Rutten be
elissa (38dadd) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:45 pmable to put two and two
together? Think not.
You, Patrick.
angeleno (94f48b) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:45 pmOh, my apologies for linking Politico. I thought it was Daily Caller for some reason.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:46 pmAngeleno accuse you of having no grace
KKKilgore Trout accuses you of racism
Bill Clinton accuses you of infidelity
Mahmoud Ahmanutjob accuses you of being a jew hating theocrat.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:51 pmSo, angeleno:
Are we supposed to mourn the layoff of a dishonest journalist?
or
Are we to believe Rutten was not dishonest?
Can you defend one of these premises, please?
Patterico (f724ca) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:55 pmStill, grace or not, can Angeleno concede that Mr Ruten and pals did this to themselves? It’s been obvious for some time that if the LAT continues to suck, it will continue to fail.
It sucks when anyone loses their job these days or any days, but when someone deserves to lose their job, it does make it a challenge to cry for them.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:55 pmNo. Good night.
angeleno (94f48b) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:56 pmdidn’t mean to cross post. I talk too much when I have coffee.
/guess how much coffee I drink
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:56 pmi am still waiting for the day they have to sell the Spring Street building for lofts and condos…
a pox on the LA Slimes, everyone who w*rks there and anyone who defends them.
villainous scum, one and all.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 7/27/2011 @ 7:57 pmOK. Drive-by insult, scurry off without defending the insult. Graceful!
Patterico (f724ca) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:04 pmI submit that angeleno has no complaint if he cannot defend one of the two premises I set forth. Am I wrong?
Patterico (f724ca) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:05 pmWe all need to accept that angeleno is better than us. He stands in righteous judgment. The idea he would have to explain his judgments is really quite silly when you consider how much better he is than everyone else.
—
That said, it’s sad Tim deserved to lose his job. Grace is the idea that people should not get what they deserve. I can say I honestly feel sorry for organizations that go in exactly the wrong direction. I think pity is more appropriate than grace in this instance.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:14 pmwhen Jessica Savitch lost her job that was sad
this not so much
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:14 pmElsewhere, the Buss family is popping champagne corks with abandon as they have just been rid of a man who played it straight, with intelligence, and called it straight – Mark Heisler.
Ed, I was never big on Heisler. I agree with you that he wasn’t a Laker homer and generally gave you a fair take on the NBA, but I thought his writing was overall pretty weak and that he had a tendency to fill his columns with the same old unverified gossip that his minions around the league fed him. I also thought his book on the Lakers, Madmen’s Ball (buy it through Patterico’s Amazon widget), was surprisingly dull especially compared to the book Roland Lazenby wrote (The Show).
Did you ever hear Heisler appear on the radio? God bless him, but he is incapable of stringing together three words without saying, “um” or “uh.” He’s well-known enough and has been around long enough that I am sure he’ll land on his feet.
JVW (39c649) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:15 pmAngeleno am I supposed to cry when Tim Rutten–pompous socialist windbag–gets laid off? Look, I feel bad for anybody who has been downsized, let go, laid off. I’ve been there personally a couple of times in my career and it ain’t fun.
But Tim Rutten, along with Hentry Weinstein was part of a liberal cabal on the staff at the Los Angeles Times that had great influence on the direction of the paper over the last 20 years.
I’ve read the Los Angeles Times daily for almost 40 years now. One mark of a serious, worthwhile newspaper is that the editors and reporters keep a sharp distinction between the news side and the op ed side. The Times has had a checkered history in that regard–in the 1920’s and 1930’s a reactionary/city father/business booster adjunct of the Chamber of Commerce.
The Chandler family tried to clean up their act in that regard from ~1960 to about 1990.
But starting about 1990 the LA Times editors lost control of the op-ed/opinion portion of the paper. The news hole was filled with heavily slanted pieces favoring Clinton/Obama and anybody with a (D) after their name.
I’d say that the Times ceased being a serious newspaper maybe 15 years ago–around the time of Lewinsky. Their circulation has gone in the toilet, the size of the paper has shrunk dramatically, advertising is way off. Size wise and influence wise in the country it may as well be the Tulsa Times, or the Tacoma Tribune.
And who let the op ed dogs out? Well Messrs. Rutten and Weinstein have a lot to answer for in that regard.
Rutten is losing his job–but his influence and actions have already cost dozens–if not hundreds–of Times reporters to lose their jobs. Based on that track record, am I going to whine when Rutten finally, long overdue, has a can tied to his tail? I don’t think so. Karma is a booger.
Comanche Voter (0e06a9) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:17 pmI would have dropped Hiltzik before Raton but maybe they were paying Raton more.
AZ Bob (aa856e) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:18 pmMr. feets- you really cannot compare the two incidents. driving malparactice versus journalistic malpractice–
elissa (38dadd) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:19 pmno but for reals it was sad plus there was a dog involved
happyfeet (3c92a1) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:25 pmBut the fact of the matter is Rutten was not let go because of his dishonesty. It had nothing to do with that and everything to do with numbers. That is the unfortunate part and that is why the LAT will continue to be what it has consistently been for the past decade. At its core, it has not nor will not change with this.
angeleno, while I feel badly when anyone loses their job, I feel less so regarding Rutten. He had an amazing opportunity to do stellar writing, to be insightful, objective, challenging and provoking with honesty and integrity. And he squandered that over the years. So that he ended up laid off over the honest hard-working writer who makes every effort at maintaining their integrity and objectivity, then I am far less sorry about it.
I think the grace in Rutten’s life was being gifted with such an amazing job. That he chose to handle it frivolously was his decision.
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:25 pmJVW – No worries. I do believe that Heisler was uncommonly free of agendae. I am certain he refused to suffer fools within the Laker organization. He also gave Kupchak his due well before the Gasol deal.
To me, it is notable when any actual journalist is published in the LAT. I shall miss him. The Buss family? Not so much.
Ed from SFV (7d7851) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:29 pmIf the LAT was a place one could go for great journalism, they probably would be more successful.
Dana has a great point that Rutten was a lucky SOB to have such a great job for a time. A chance to really make a positive impact on this country. Instead he screeched that Cheney enjoyed torturing people.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:31 pmWe have the same crappy liberal-type newspaper here in Philly. When I cancelled my subsripion, I felt bad for the folks who work there who have nothing to with the liberal writers. Like the person who delivered my paper and the printer and the ad sales people. Libs like Rutten were selfish and they didn’t care that they were ruining the paper for 50% of its paying customers.
AJ Lynch (653b75) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:32 pmMark,
“Hiltzik helps give a crappy aura to the business section, because along with his fame (or infamy) as a sockpuppet, isn’t he even more nonsensically leftist than Tim Rutten is?”
Main difference: Hiltzik is a lot smarter than Rutten. He can actually commit useful journalism, when his hard-left politics and lack of ethics don’t get in the way. Rutten is just a pontificating gasbag.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (7ef609) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:40 pm==were ruining the paper for 50% of its paying customers==
It’s really quite an interesting business model, A.J.
There are few other businesses in the whole US of A which would ever willingly and foolishly throw away 50% of possible paying customers like the LA Times and the NY Times do every single day. Most companies fight to get customers and then to keep them. These papers proactively and regularly piss customers off enough to lose them for good.
elissa (38dadd) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:47 pmMaybe the answer is to just have Murdoch own all the newspapers?
Spartacvs (029dd1) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:51 pmJoan Didion’s book, “After Henry,” has a chapter called “Times Mirror Square” that outlines the historical beginnings of the L.A. Times.
It’s an excellent read and presents a factual account of a paper born to serve as a support tool to market and expand the family’s real estate holdings.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:52 pmThere are some very good journalists at the L.A. Times. I’ve worked with them. There are also unethical ones. I worked alongside those people, too.
There are unethical people everywhere. Everything is not about liberal or conservative.
One side is not all bad and the other side all good.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 7/27/2011 @ 8:57 pmOr maybe just have Obama own the newspaper where no one can say anything negative.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:00 pmGood points, Anita.
I would say, however, that dishonesty ruins the package for me. That would include the smart Hitzlik.
Being liberal or conservative doesn’t give anyone a pass on ethics and integrity.
Dana (4eca6e) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:01 pmelissa,
There are few other businesses in the whole US of A which would ever willingly and foolishly throw away 50% of possible paying customers like the LA Times and the NY Times do every single day.
Another possibility is that they’re intentionally throwing away half the potential customers, to win the other half by printing all the news that fits their bias.
Brother Bradley J. Fikes, C.O.R. (7ef609) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:05 pmWell said, Dana.
Anita Busch (a025dd) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:12 pm_____________________________________________
He can actually commit useful journalism
Bradley, I do admit he did a good job several months ago in covering the hucksters managing the lap-band weight-loss clinics. Or the people responsible for the shoddiest, most annoying billboard and radio ad campaigns imaginable—and whose medical licenses have been revoked, and who have caused a few patients to die.
I wouldn’t mind Hiltzik and Rutten — or I should say I could tolerate them — if the LA Times employed at least a few columnists of rightist bent. In fact, because the paper’s internet side has a political blog from Andrew Malcolm, whenever I read his postings, I often find myself scratching my head and asking “how did someone who’s so down-to-earth get associated with the name “Los Angeles Times”?!
Of course, a lot of the current economic problems facing the print media go beyond the purely political. The Orange County Register, as one example, is different in its general ideological slant from the Times, but it too is struggling as much as any other newspaper out there.
But the MSM is mostly of the left, or employs a high percentage of people of the left. So for all of this dislocation to be occurring during this “goddamn America” period of 2011 seems peculiarly fitting and strangely ironic.
Mark (411533) — 7/27/2011 @ 9:15 pmAt times, the LAT does a good job. Most of the time it is so dishonest and biased I cannot in good conscience subscribe (or stand the stress of reading it). And so I don’t, and people get laid off. Hard lesson for reporters and especially ordinary, blameless workers. I feel for them.
If they offered a bundle, say 3 sections of your choice, I might have subscribed to it. Mine would be Calendar, Food, and Sports maybe. Too late now tho. The Times delenda est. Something better will come–or is already here (the internet).
Patricia (1832e5) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:52 pmThat’s exactly it. A few outlets have decided that they will be slanted and help provide a bubble.
This is stupid because I can get liberal propaganda for free from any blog. It’s smart because it’s cheaper to throw together than to send out investigative reporters all the time.
I think part of the LAT’s problem is that if they want to be a bubble for someone reading a paper, they have to compete with the NYT. So what if the NYT doesn’t provide local information to Californians if all the reader wanted was liberal talking points.
A better model for a local newspaper is to focus on providing information. Bias seeps in anyway, inevitably, but you fight it instead of embrace it, and your readers feel more informed when they finish your paper.
I’m sure Anita is right and the LAT has good honorable folks working there. I think the bad apples are jeopardizing many more than just their jobs.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/27/2011 @ 10:58 pm“Layoffs at L.A. Times”
BFD, The more left wing propaganda outlets that take a dive, the better off we are.
Papers are dead anyway. The internet will put them out of business eventually, unless our leftard government intervenes and starts propping them up with government subsidies.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/27/2011 @ 11:10 pmTim Rutten? GONE?!
My heart — it weeps.
Murgatroyd (fd5fcd) — 7/28/2011 @ 1:57 amDustin, a president borrowing without Congress’s authorisation is not despotism. In fact if the president can find a chump to make such a loan it would be sort of good for us, because that’s free money that we never have to pay back. At least, I hope that every Republican contender for the presidency would publicly confirm that if elected they will repudiate all such loans. So where’s the despotism.
Despotism starts when a president starts spending money that Congress has not appropriated.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:41 amNo, when the President decides his authority can simply be completely expanded on a whim, to the point where congress is irrelevant, he’s despotic.
OK, this is am amusing prospect. As fair as it sounds I find it implausible. The President has done this in the past recently, despotically invading another country in rather obvious violation of the fact the constitution makes him merely the enforcer of congress’s authority over making all rules government how the military behaves (why the war powers act is obviously part of this regulation of the military power).
In other words, Obama knows he can get away with a lot.
I would hope so too. Good point. Yet I have less faith in how it would work out than you do.
In fact, just laughing off an attempt of the president to borrow money, I assume from the federal reserve, would be icing on the cake. If he does ‘invoke’ this despotism, he needs to be removed from office via impeachment, as does anyone who goes along with it.
But he knows that won’t happen, or it would have happened when Obama removed the congress’s complete authority to regulate the military and declare wars.
Yes, I think the fundamental problem is that these politicians want to maintain an appearance before a press that doesn’t bother reporting unbelievable excesses such as providing drug lords with enough weapons to raise a small army while signing executive orders to seize any American property involved (which seems to me to be a shot across the bow at gun dealers, but what do I know?).
We lived in a very good country with a very screwed up government, and I blame education and the media for that.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/28/2011 @ 4:15 amshould say ‘governing’ instead of ‘government’. Poorly written anyway.
Dustin (b7410e) — 7/28/2011 @ 4:36 amHere’s a current example of the sort of hack journalism responsible for the loss of confidence in the ability of the LA Times to deliver news and opinion uncontaminated by idiotic left-wing hatred.
Seeds of terror in Norway
ropelight (eaf60a) — 7/28/2011 @ 5:32 amLA Times OP-ED, July 28, 2011
poor Otis dead and gone
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:04 amleft Tim here to sing his song… oh… wait
I wonder if this author considers Al Qaeda and Hamas to be part of the violent far right.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:32 amWell Michael, Al Qaeda and Hamas are conservative. Just not Christian.
spartacvs (2d9449) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:35 am_____________________________________________
I wonder if this author considers Al Qaeda and Hamas to be part of the violent far right.
The variety of liberals throughout the Western World — certainly those in academia and the media — who find themselves subtly rationalizing away the ruthlessness and extremism of Islamic fanatics are merely displaying a peculiar version of the way they responded to the ruthlessness and extremism of the former Soviet Union, or the way they tend to shrug off today’s North Korea, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez.
Case in point: New York City’s Michael Bloomberg at first believing the attempted bombing of Times Square was the work of someone from the Tea Party, not Islam.
Such idiocy is about as absurd and pathetic as most liberals believing their sentiments originate from a point of humaneness, compassion and sophistication.
Mark (411533) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:54 amHilzik is earning his kibble, Rutten has shown flashes of evading the shock collar:
That’s the reality on display in Washington today. A determined bloc that controls one house of one of the three branches of government has brought that government to a halt on behalf of an adamantine no-tax pledge with which polls say a majority of Americans don’t agree. Hanging in the balance is the full faith and credit of the United States, a threat which polls say most Americans don’t cotton to.
The impasse over the federal debt ceiling underscores the oft-remarked rule that in a game of brinkmanship, the side with fewer scruples and greater intransigence has the upper hand. What gives dictatorial power to a small bloc of Republican die-hards opposed to any tax increases is their apparent willingness, even eagerness, to test the consequence of a U.S. default on its debts.
ian cormac (886e1a) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:04 amI’m sure they’ll hire Andrew Breitbart and make y’all happy.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:30 amIs there no blood libel so despicable, no calumny so reprehensible, no deception so disingenuous, no self-betrayal so expedient that leftist vermin won’t besoil themselves to kneel and worship at the reflected image of their malignant selves?
The proof is here for all to see, poisoned ghouls feeding on the corpses of children.
ropelight (eaf60a) — 7/28/2011 @ 9:32 amHow vivid.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/28/2011 @ 11:19 amThat would be good news, but they’re not going to.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 11:20 am“How vivid.”
If you don’t like the reflected image of yourself, quit behaving like a ghoul. Jesus loves you and wants you to heal yourself.
ropelight (eaf60a) — 7/28/2011 @ 11:52 am“An image of myself”? I don’t follow.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/28/2011 @ 12:33 pmAs for Jesus, ropelight, he clearly leaned left
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L-nY29bW2LA&feature=related
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/28/2011 @ 12:36 pmAnd there he goes again.
Simon Jester (c8876d) — 7/28/2011 @ 12:44 pmYes, Jesus clearly leaned left. I remember when He said, “I tell you, go to the government to take what your brother has and sell it to give money to the poor, then come and follow me.”
Jesus was more into personal philanthropy than using the force of government to spread the money around.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 12:48 pmIOW he was an anarchist.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/28/2011 @ 12:51 pmIOW your manics episodes are rarely amusing.
JD (d48c3b) — 7/28/2011 @ 1:04 pmDavid please stfu you moron.
Wasnt the oslo shooter a big fan of overpopulation conspiracies?
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/28/2011 @ 1:14 pmNo, he probably just wanted to see the House of David restored to throne. If you look at what he actually said, rather than what the Xians have understood him to have meant, he was a fairly orthodox Jew, or as it was called at the time, a pharisee.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 1:17 pmNo, Jesus recognized the need for government. But He didn’t equate government with philanthropy.
Nowadays, Jesus would probably be a Libertarian.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 1:21 pmWhat is it about the connection between the LAT (the paper that brought us “The Magic Negro“) and DE that makes any kind of sense?
AD-RtR/OS! (7ab0c4) — 7/28/2011 @ 1:40 pmAny criticism of the Times and David comes out of his hole to irritate everyone.
Comparing Palin to Peronistas is wrong. Right wing or Left wing peronistas are no conservatives.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/28/2011 @ 1:43 pm“Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”
Jesus was, rather obviously, NOT an anarchist.
Ehrenstein, rather obviously, IS a nitwit.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:01 pmThat’s a cryptic statement, so no meaning derived from it can be obvious.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:03 pmWho this Jesus person “was” is open to question, as many historians doubt his existence. Rather than an actual individual many feel he was a composite figure derived from severla itinerant rabbis of the period.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:20 pmJesus believed the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand and did not evince much interest in questions of earthly governance.
He did seem to be something of a class warrior (theologically speaking, anyway): And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.
But I have to thank the person who said Jesus was a libertarian. Laughter is therapeutic and this one will have an esteemed place in my collection of quotes from the Debt Ceiling Summer.
angeleno (94f48b) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:23 pmYou’re an idiot. I meant it in the sense that Jesus preached that individuals were charged with caring for their fellow man, not government. That’s pretty close to libertarian philosophy. Granted, He probably wasn’t in favor of legalizing drugs, but He didn’t condemn prostitutes, either.
Chuck Bartowski (4c6c0c) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:31 pmjesus had his own agenda
happyfeet (a55ba0) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:33 pm“That’s a cryptic statement”
Doesn’t sound too cryptic to me. When he was asked whether people should resist the authority of the Roman state by refusing to pay taxes to the Romans, he told them (in effect) why bother resisting, since you already submitted to it when you took Caesar’s coins.
If Christ had been an anarchist he would have said, that they shouldn’t pay taxes to any governemt, since that’s what anarchists believe.
He wasn’t an anarchist, nor did he lean to the left (which is exactly the opposite of what real anarchists do…anarchists lean to the right…all the way to the right, actually).
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:34 pmI think Jesus is responsible for the Norway murders.
JD (318f81) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:40 pmYou’re droll, Chuck. And you’re right — he was friendly with prostitutes..,and tax collectors!
But trying to turn Jesus into a proponent of any particular philosophy of secular government is a pretty vain exercise.
angeleno (94f48b) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:42 pmWhat makes you think that? He’d probably have found the idea of banning drugs bizarre.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:43 pm“Jesus believed the Kingdom of Heaven was at hand and did not evince much interest in questions of earthly governance.”
I think that statement is pretty close to the mark.
Jesus didn’t give a hoot about political issues. He had more important things to worry about.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:43 pmLefty anarchists hate the government and want to do away with it because of what they deem its toxic effect on the poor.
Right wing anarchists hate the government because they believe it is their right to do whatever they please.
I thought the band Blondie committed the Norway murders.
I’m gonna getcha getcha getcha.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:44 pmAnd what makes you think that? He may have saved the woman’s life, but then he told her to stop sinning.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:44 pm“In effect”? You’re reading into it what you want to. Others can read into it widely different meanings. Because the words themselves are deliberately cryptic.
Um, since his purpose was to avoid getting arrested while not completely lying about what he really thought, he would hardly have said that.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:47 pmBut he didn’t condemn prostitutes either.
If jesus were alive he would condemn Bawney Fwank.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:47 pmProbably. But not for the things you’re thinking of. Mostly for sabbath-breaking and treif-eating and consorting with heathens.
Milhouse (ea66e3) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:53 pmit must be wonderful to be able to go through life knowing exactly what Jesus was thinking…
have you ever thought of rewriting the bible and sharing your insights with the world?
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 7/28/2011 @ 2:55 pmNot only that Milhouse, Bawney Fwank probably has a small Fwank.
Hehehe.
DohBiden (d54602) — 7/28/2011 @ 3:01 pmOften people think the 4th Commandment forbids profanity. It does, but it also prohibits putting words in God’s mouth.
If someone is so bold as to proclaim to others what God wants, he better damn well know what he’s talking about, or he’s in violation of an important provision.
ropelight (eaf60a) — 7/28/2011 @ 3:07 pmCondemn Barney Frank? I doubt it. Especially if they had the same taste in boyfriends.
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/28/2011 @ 3:09 pm‘“In effect”? You’re reading into it what you want to.’
If that’s what you prefer to believe.
“Um, since his purpose was to avoid getting arrested…”
Was that Jesus’ purpose?
I rather think not.
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/28/2011 @ 3:10 pmTo be more precise, the NY Times’s market is the tri-state area, as well as tri-state”expatriates”, a market that much more left wing than California, let alone America on average, although for their market, NY Times sometimes goes too far off the deep end.
You are right about the L.A. Times, as there are many conservative areas in California (Orange County, the Valley, the Inland Empire). It does explain in part why the L.A. Times editorial board sometimes rejects leftist policies, like the infamous SB 48.
Any evidence of this?
he was dispelling the 1st century Judaism’s version of the “prosperity Gospel”.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/28/2011 @ 3:46 pmDavisd Ehrenstein was a commenter on this page.
–DavidEhrenstein
I will not write a detailed response to this. I will simply note that before the 1970’s, any contributions that gays and lesbians made to society were unconnected to their sex lives.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/28/2011 @ 4:08 pmshiver me timbers
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/28/2011 @ 4:33 pmRear Admiral Bahney Fwank
butt pirate navy
rutten not numbah
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/28/2011 @ 4:38 pmone hack not even numbah
ten he one hundred
“Times Terminates Fiction Writer.”
“There Must Be Money Somewhere To Pay Me, I juts Know There Is” Says Rutten.
“Prop 13 to Blame for Rutten Loss,” Says Skelton.
“Amazon to Blame for Rutten Loss,” Says Hitlizk
“Banks: Rutten Departure Increases Diversity At Times.”
“Rutten to Work For Mayor’s Economic Policy Task Force.”
“Rutten to advise Gov Brown on New Economic Legislation.”
“Rutten Now White House Economic Advisor: Gained Experience in Major Media Outlet.”
Bemis (329cc1) — 7/28/2011 @ 6:52 pmReally? On what basis do you advance such a curious notion? Rather makes a hash of Proust,
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/28/2011 @ 7:35 pmdon’t you think?
As far as I am unaware, gay activism started in the 1970’s with the Stonewall riots, as well as early court challenges to the traditional definition of marriage, e.g. Baker v. Nelson, 409 U.S. 810, 34 L.E.2d 65, 93 S Ct 37 (1972)
I graduated high school in 1995. At the time, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy was brand new, and there was a court challenge pending before the Second Circuit. Able v. United States 88 F.3d 1280 (2nd Cir. 1996) and Baehr v. Lewin 74 Haw. 530, 852 P.2d 44 (Haw. Sup. Ct. 1993), the Hawaii marriage case was still on remand to the trial court level. Obviously those events too recent to have been included in California’s public school curricula at the time I attended school.
From what I read, and you can correct me if I am wrong, I have not read about any facts showing that contributions by gays and lesbians were systematically excluded from public school textbooks for grades 9-12.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:01 pm_______________________________________________
Any evidence of this?
Mark (411533) — 7/28/2011 @ 8:12 pmI will not write a detailed response to this. I will simply note that before the 1970′s, any contributions that gays and lesbians made to society were unconnected to their sex lives.
Bah. It’s a well-established historical fact that Einstein and Edison were both lesbians.
Murgatroyd (fd5fcd) — 7/28/2011 @ 11:02 pmReally? I didn’t know that. What plays were they in? What roles did they play?
John Hitchcock (9e8ad9) — 7/29/2011 @ 12:42 amLesbians, thespians, what’s the difference?
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/29/2011 @ 3:00 amWhen your talking Eva LeGalienne there IS no difference, Surls.
Gay activism actually started in the early 1950’s, right here in Los Angeles, with the Mattachine Society. But I’m sure you don’t know about that and don’t care to.
And at the same time I’m sure you certainly care that gay and lesbain kids aren’t informed of it. They should devote their energies to praying away the gay — right?
David Ehrenstein (2550d9) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:31 ambullsh*t! Edison
ColonelHaiku (8a1a1f) — 7/29/2011 @ 7:41 amhad rocket in pocket and
finger in socket
Except that Stonewall got much more attention than the Mattachine Society. It is understandable as to why the Mattachine Society is not mentioned in history and social studies textbooks.
Michael Ejercito (64388b) — 7/29/2011 @ 10:24 am“Gay activism actually started in the early 1950′s, right here in Los Angeles, with the Mattachine Society. But I’m sure you don’t know about that and don’t care to.”
Ehrenstein is correct for once.
I couldn’t care less.
Even a blind pig…
Dave Surls (28f866) — 7/30/2011 @ 3:36 amangeleno,
I have re-thought your comments and I was wrong. Wrong to exult in Rutten’s layoff. Some of the things he wrote did not aid the search for the truth but we are all human. I would rather not be someone who derives joy from another’s pain, and so grace it is.
Patterico (f724ca) — 8/20/2011 @ 6:41 amLet me withdraw my original remark. There is grace as well as passion in your world. Both are good.
I should also acknowledge my own lack of grace from time to time, probably more often than I’d like to admit.
angeleno (e448c2) — 9/3/2011 @ 8:22 am