Tuesday, August 17, 2010

A Response to W-Dervish's Impassioned Defense of Olbermann

You said a lot there, my friend. Obviously, Mr. Olbermann's viewers ARE free in fact to "draw their own conclusions". But based upon the fact that Mr. Olbermann ONLY gives one side to literally every story/doesn't EVER allow conflicting viewpoints on his show/doesn't allow people EVER to defend themselves/constantly refuses to debate people, it might truly be kind of hard to come up with an independent conclusion (they would obviously have to watch other programs, in addition to Mr. Olbermann's)......................................................................................................As to your speculation that I would probably "criticize Olbermann for his obvious prejudice against alleged sexual harassers" - you obviously don't know me very well. You see, wd, I am actually to the LEFT of President Obama on social issues, civil liberties, etc.. I am FOR gay-marriage. I am AGAINST don't ask, don't tell. I am FOR federal funding of stem-cell research. I am PRO-choice. I am AGAINST the death-penalty. I am FOR putting batterers in jail and throwing away the key. I am AGAINST rendition. I am AGAINST warrant-less wire-tapping. I am AGAINST water-boarding. I am AGAINST racial-profiling. To say that I am pro-harassment (or that I have some sympathy for harassers) is ludicrous. As for Clarence Thomas and Anita Hill, I have no idea what happened between them (nobody does, save for them). My suspicion is that the truth lies somewhere in between their respective versions of it.....As for Thomas himself, he clearly wouldn't have been my pick. But like I said, elections have consequences.....................................................................................................Yes, Mr. Olbermann did "mention" Massa. But he clearly didn't go on a jihad against him like he did the other stooges you mentioned. And, besides, Massa was a renegade Democrat. He voted against the health-care bill and accused Chief of Staff Emanuel of nakedly harassing him at the Congressional gym. Going after him is hardly the equivalent of going after a Democrat in good standing - I don't know, say, a Dick Blumenthal, for instance (a story that Olbermann TOTALLY ignored - just like Sean Hannity ignored the RNC strip-club scandal)................................................................................................................You listen to Olbermann because you agree with him. Dude, don't you think that that's a big part of our problem these days? People are only listening to people who reaffirm what they already believe. That isn't free thinking. For free thinking to truly occur, you need to accommodate as well as assimilate. As a famous somebody once said, "Nobody has a monopoly on wisdom and truth." I forgot who actually said that. I know that it wasn't Keith Olbermann......................................................................................................Yes, I know that our colleague Rusty uses ad hominems from time to time (we all do, no?). And, yes, maybe he shouldn't (I will let him defend himself). But to criticize him and not see that Olbermann himself is actually the king of such mean-spiritedness (he uses ad hominems nightly), I don't know. You really might want to take another look at Mr. Olbermann.


Beach Bum said...

Truthfully I'm all for Olbermann and O'Reilly being forced to work together on one show and having to debate each other.

Although it would be especially hard to build a room big enough for each of their egos.

Just a thought.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

I can't remember two larger egos, double b. I really can't. But, unfortunately, a guy like E.J. Dionne just wouldn't register the ratings. I mean, just ask Campbell Brown.

Oso said...

I'd rather see them go three rounds.

w-dervish said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
w-dervish said...

to your speculation that I would probably "criticize Olbermann for his obvious prejudice against alleged sexual harassers". you obviously don't know me very well...

Or... maybe I know you better than I thought? I thought you would deny that the harassment happened. Or minimize it. And that is exactly what you did.

You said, "I have no idea what happened between them (nobody does, save for them)".

Court cases are decided on a daily basis where only the perpetrator and the victim know what really happened. That does not stop us from asking juries or judges to decide who is telling the truth.

Anita Hill testified under oath at Thomas' 1991 Senate confirmation hearings. There were other women who said they were also harassed by Thomas.

Legally, he was "alleged" to have committed sexual harassment, but I think that intelligent people can reasonably conclude that the guy was GUILTY and that he LIED (under oath) when he labeled the allegations false. He should NOT have been confirmed.

I never suggested that you are "pro-harassment", or that you have "some sympathy for harassers", only that you would criticize Olbermann if he discussed the "allegations"... because he'd agree (I believe) that the "allegations" are factual. Based on your statement that you "have no idea what happened between them", I'm standing my previous comment. It's fairly easy to formulate an idea based on the evidence we have... but for some reason you refuse to.

As for the long list of things you are FOR and AGAINST... those aren't positions generally taken by Republicans... so why in the HELL would you "actually like to vote Republican more"???!

I do like Olbermann because I agree with him. But I also watch/listen to other commentators who invite guests on their programs who disagree with them (and I subscribe to quite a few RW email newsletters). Yes, I do think it is a "big part of our problem these days" that some people only listen to political commentators they agree with... and never consider alternate points of view... especially when those pundits are LYING to them... but as I already pointed out I DON'T DO THAT, and, in any case, Keith Olbermann DOES NOT LIE... unlike Beck, O'Reilly, Hannity or any of the others on Faux News.

Which makes it really disgusting, IMO, when you compare KO to the Faux News scumbags. KO believes in what he is doing, and is not just in it for the money (unlike the faux news scumbags). I think he'd still be a sports commentator if that were the case. It's one of the reasons I admire him... he's trying to make a difference... for example... the free health clinics he initiated and promoted. He's one of the good guys, not a hypocritical LIAR like the self-described "rodeo clown" Glenn Beck.

Rusty Shackleford said...

So...let me get this straight,in the Merry Old Land of Dervish (around the corner from oz)conservatives are liers and liberals are the truth tellers.Roberts a lier,Alito a lier,Thomas a lier,Beck,Hannity,O'Reilly all liers....all of Fox News liers.But,in Dervish Land (around the corner from oz)Kieth Olbermann is a beacon of the truth and light.Yes,the one and only"bathtub boy" that crazy,angry,idiotic,low rated simpleton...yes the same guy who milked his fathers illness for ratings....the guy who channels Edward R. Morrow he's the guy Dervish has a man crush on and looks up to as a beacon of hope.

Rusty Shackleford said...

Yikes Dervish....you choose your hero's well.....good night and good luck.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

W-dervish, did you believe that lady who accused President Clinton of raping her? Did you believe all of the bullshit that John Edwards was peddling at the time? It sounds to me like you only believe the people who you agree with politically. Me, being that I'm not a member of either of these parties, I'm not particularly bound by that obligation.....I didn't "minimize" the accusations. I only said that I'm not entirely sure who's telling the truth. Again, my suspicion is that the truth (AS IT ALMOST ALWAYS DOES) lies somewhere in between. I suspect that there probably was some flirtation between the two and that it, yes, it probably did go sour. Beyond that, I do not know. Sue me......I'd like to be able to vote Republican more for 2 reasons. 1) I'm a strong proponent of a two (actually, MORE THAN TWO) party system. And, yes, I'd preferably like to see these two (or more) parties vital/sane. There were a lot of moderate Republicans when I was growing up. I'd like to see that wing of the party make a comeback. 2) I don't particularly care for the Democrats, either.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

As for guys like Mr. Brock, I'm always suspicious of people who go from one political extreme to another. I find it quite creepy in fact. I didn't like or trust Mr. Brock then. And I don't like or trust him now......I admire and respect the fact that Mr. Olbermann does charitable work (as I do, Mr. O'Reilly). It doesn't mean that I'm going to give him a pass for being such a nasty and dishonest journalist/commentator. The man's still never apologized (for example) for the lies and character assassination that he heaped upon Baltimore Sun media critic, David Zurawick....OR for the lies that he told about Fox News's Major Jacobs, either.

Chris said...

That tight lipped freak Olbermenn is the biggest buffoon in TV. I can't wait to see him get fired soon because of his ratings.

w-dervish said...

Rusty, I made no generalizations about "all Conservatives" or "all Liberals". There are some Conservatives who are against extending the bush tax cuts, for example, so I'd say this definitely indicates that there are some honest Republicans left.

If you wish to believe that I have a "man crush" on Keith Olbermann, so be it. I don't care what you think. I said I admire him... it doesn't go any further than that.

KO did not milk his father's illness for ratings. His father's illness opened his eyes and made him determined to do something about the state of health care in this country. I respect his bravery in sharing something so personal with his viewers.

Will, am I supposed to defend Clinton because I agree with him politically? Why don't you go ahead and do that, since you're always singing his praises. If anyone has a "man crush" here I believe it might be you.

For the record, I don't agree with Clinton politically... I think he was a Republican-lite president.

I really wish that Obama had not surrounded himself with so many ex-Clintonites. Honestly, I may end up feeling the same way about Obama as I do about Clinton... at least Obama isn't a cheater.

Speaking of cheaters, I think it was horrible what Edwards did to his wife. I do, however, still agree with him politically. I voted for him in the TN primary. Although my vote was cast during the early voting period, and when the actual voting period came he had already dropped out. So my vote was essentially wasted.

I'm glad Edwards didn't win the nomination... not that he had that great a chance. Although I remember when some of the allegations came out against Clinton (before he was elected to his first term)... I thought he was done.

However, if you said I HAD to chose a side... I'd say I'm inclined to believe Joe Conason, who cast serious doubts on Juanita Broaddick's allegations in his book "The Hunting of the President".

The rape allegations against Clinton may be as credible as the Vince Foster murder allegations against Hillary Clinton.

Will "take no prisoners" Hart said...

Chris, welcome. You look familiar. Ill have to check you out later.....Clinton was probably a bad example, huh, w-d? LOL Man, I wish I could vote for him again. LOL