Keith Olbermann slams Texans because of some poll saying that 38 percent of Texans believe God created human beings pretty much in their present form about 10,000 years ago. I happen to be in the 62 percent of Texans that don't believe God created us a mere 10,00 years ago. I believe the Earth is much older that. However, I think it's pretty absurd to believe humans are warming up the Earth's climate to the point where glaciers are melting and much of our U.S. coastal cities will be underwater in the future. But I don't see Keith Olbermann slamming the global warming alarmists.
Here is a column by Joe Scarborough defending his conservatism. My issue with Joe Scarborough isn't that he's not "conservative" enough or that he criticizes the Republican Party. Criticize Republicans all you want, Joe. Fine by me. However, what I don't like is the cheap shots. As Brent Bozell points out, you say stuff like this: "It is such a disservice to compare Sarah Palin in any aspect to Howard Dean. Yes, because that is an insult to Howard Dean’s intelligence." That isn't respectful criticism, it's a cheap shot.
Another thing that is off putting about Joe Scarborough is that he lets his co-hosts like Mika Brzezinski and guests get away with saying some incredible stuff without any response. If he's supposed to be the conservative voice on Morning Joe then don't let liberal premises go unchallenged, which he oftentimes does. Just look at this video from a recent panel discussion:
Can anyone seriously name an anchor on cable news that is more vile than Keith Olbermann? I know that I don't like the tone of Glenn Beck's program but I'm not sure if he's at Keith Olbermann level.
I know the left and right wing like to debate about who is more mean- spirited, each claim to be more civil. I would say there are loudmouths on both side of aisles. However, I would admit there is one difference. The difference between left and right wing meanies is this: Right wing meanies actually get scrutiny by the media.
Yesterday, Ann Coulter and Bill Maher had a debate. If both Ms. Coulter and Mr. Maher were to do several media appearances tomorrow, who do you think would most likely get reprimanded by their interviewer for their past remarks? My bet would Ann Coulter, even though Bill Maher has a long history of saying controversial statements. And it way it might even be a blessing in disguise. Conservatives have to defend themselves under scrutiny, thus, helping them fine tune the message.
Update: Also, conservative loudmouths don't get this close to the U.S. Senate.
For some reason I decided to take some time out and read someone of the reaction in the progressive blogosphere regarding SNL's hilarious skit on Keith Olbermann. I wanted to see if the left has a sense of humor about themselves. To be fair, most comments I read stated they thought the skit was funny. However, some were not to happy with the lambasting of Mr. Olbermann. Here are some reactions:
Mildly amusing. But I've never seen Keith cut off a guest and on the real show one gets the impression that Wolf is a respected colleague, so that part didn't hold up too well. Lampooning liberal ideas just isn't as funny.
Olbermann is sometimes a histrionic windbag, yes, but he's not morally at sea. This sketch was misplaced.
Better to take on real hate speech: Michael Savage, Rush Limbaugh, and leave the mistakes of someone who is fundamentally trustworthy to correct themselves.
Keith Olbermann fundamentally trustworthy? That's news to me!
Affleck seemed to be channeling Ron Silver's bitter political split with his formerly Democratic and liberal ideals.
Not SNL's finest hour. Maybe a hint of the depths they'll channel after the election.
Again, all signs show that Mr. Affleck is good ol' liberal and a Barack Obama supporter. Perhaps, he just thinks Olbermann is a joke. I mean I've heard late night comics (who skewer Republicans much more than Democrats)
BUT a dishonest skit. Olbermann's outrage is NEVER glib or facile. For a long time, his was the ONLY voice on teevee who dared call these evil corrupt disgraceful bastards out. The only one.
Also note the free bit of rehabilitation for the Chimp - like he's been unfairly attacked - my arse! Get ready for the weepy farewell media tributes.
Olbermann has gone through the being IGNORED stage; now the RIDICULE stage begins.
Oh also, he'll have the stones to highlight this on Countdown so unlike all the other brave media figures who distain their well-deserved critics.
They tolerate right wing extremist points of view as mainstream.
After all, we are now the country in the industrialized world with 40+ million citizens sans health insurance, heck indian reservations have infant mortality rates as bad as certain 3rd world parts of Africa, we have conducted a war of aggression against a country that never attacked us that has caused probably close to 1 million casualties in a country of less than 30 million people. And we are a society stupid enough to give our money to the bankers, so that they can loan us our very own money under some ridiculous interests... talk about f-ing stupid! And yet so in line with conservative ideals...
But someone dares been pissed of about that, and oh... noes... he is a lefty extremist!!! Oh... gosh... think of the children.
A nation of f-ing idiots, that is what we are. BTW, if some people here consider Olbermann's opinion as left extremist, I would recommend these fools to not read some really left leaning international press. You may get the shock of your life time. You know, people out there having the indecency of fighting for a more equalitarian society, with decent standards of living, health care and quality of environment, and peace. That is so f-ing extremist!!!!
Affleck's viscous spoof naievely pushed the hard liners view, that the true Left is wrong in it's boldness, it's opposition to the Right's pro-business, pro-Wall Sreet agenda. And that we little citizens should all just be quiet and not make a stir - those in power are all knowing.
Affleck is not the first of the Hollywood politico's to play the monkey in a time of crisis, but it was the worst I've ever seen at the worst time in our history. He therefore wins my very first 'Stupidest Person in the Whole Word" award. And beating out Sarah or George was quite a feat.
This is probably the funniest. A Hollywood liberal is not left-wing enough for these people. LOL!
Comic Bill Maher doesn't do much self-reflection does? Quote:
"The only appropriate attitude for man to have about the big questions is not arrogant certitude, but doubt," Maher says in the film's closing five-minute monologue, which shifts the tone to dead serious.
"The plain fact is, religion must die for man to live," he says.
For being anti-religious, he sure is preachy.
So he hates certitude in religious people but he is certain that religion needs to die. Interesting. He makes this comment after complaining how "rigid" the New Atheist are:
The so-called New Atheists -- bestselling authors who appeal to science, logic and intellectual elitism -- typically preach only to the choir.
"I don't like the term atheist because, to me, that is as rigid as religion is," Maher said. "I preach the doctrine of 'I don't know.' I don't know and I don't think it should matter. I don't think people should be so obsessed. Give yourself a break. You don't have to worship something, you don't have to worship something that is really just in your head, that you made up."
Did you get the nuance there. First he is saying he's not an atheist, he's more of an agnostic, which is not the first time he has said he's an agnostic. Then he goes on to say that, "you don't have to worship something that is really in your head, that you made up." So he's basically saying the idea of a deity is something that is made up in people's head. I'm assuming he is saying that belief in God is fiction, which is what atheists believe. So what is it: Does he not know if God exists or is he certain that the concept of a deity is all made up in people's head? He can't have it both ways. Maher is saying I think God is fiction and is made up solely in people's head, however, I'm not sure. I'm starting to get the feeling that while Maher spends his time mocking religious people's beliefs he has no clue what he himself believes. He's lost in confusion. Or perhaps he doesn't know the difference between a agnosticism and atheism. Maher might not like religious folks' "certitude" but his inconsistency and murkiness is downright unappealing.
Does Keith Olbermann realize how idiotic and self-important he sounds? From an article published by American Journalism Review:
Nevertheless, Olbermann says newspapers play a diminishing role in how he presents and comments on the news each night. "For us in particular, I don't think a newspaper story dictates our lead, or significantly shapes our entire rundown, more than once every couple of weeks," he says. Conversely, he adds, "I don't know that anything I've done here has ever dictated how newspapers have covered a specific story, but I think some of the Special Comments [Olbermann's lengthy and often angry outbursts of personal opinion] put a spotlight on big-picture issues some of the papers, and indeed most of the political figures, were not willing or able to address," such as the rights of jailed terrorism suspects.
The whole point of the article is to point out that cable news repeats the same sound bites all day and none of it is original reporting. There's no depth in cable news coverage. Apparently Olbermann had no idea what the reporter was interviewing him about because he says the exact opposite of what they were fishing for. He tells the reporter that he is able to put a spotlight on 'big-picture issues' the way papers can't. How ridiculous is that? Everyone knows if you open up a newspaper you're going to get more in-depth coverage with feature stories than watching cable news. Oh, and how is naming General David Petraeus 'worser' person in the world putting a spotlight in 'big-picture issues'?
I was listening to The Dennis Prager Show today and I thought he made a good point about Jesse Jackson's remarks. I'm paraphrasing but he argued that he didn't like the fact that private comments were being reported. I agree with him on that point. Public people now have to guard their words even when they are having a private conversation. On the other hand, Rev. Jackson should have known that if a mike is around there's a possibly someone is going to pick up his conversation.
Public personalities and officials are always going to be under scrutiny, that's a given. However, they should be allowed a certain amount of privacy, even if it is to say ridiculous and ugly things. Taking private comments by politicians and those active in politics and broadcasting them all over television is not a good trend.
Round-the-clock political talk is planned for the Democratic and Republican national conventions later this summer. Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann will be the prime-time ringmasters working on outdoor sets in St. Paul and Denver, as opposed to booths in the convention halls. Joe Scarborough's "Morning Joe" will likely originate from a diner.
This isn't a surprise since they did election night coverage during the primary. I'm sure there will be a lot of leg tingling.
I see Maher is still on his crusade to make fun at religious people:
I have to admit the trailer is somewhat mild for Maher. I mean he didn't call the Pope a Nazi. That's progress, right?
I haven't seen the movie yet but I'm sure there will be the traditional name calling by Maher. I mean one can't possibly think it would be possible for him to make a movie without portraying Christians as a bunch of crazy, sexist, homophobic, oppressive, prudish, warmongering, ignorant, delusional dupes.
I saw this ad today on the Fox News channel for "The O'Reilly Factor":
I was particularly struck by the caption "no party lines" image:
First, it caught my attention because he's always blasted by liberal bloggers as being a right-wing demagogue. O'Reilly and Fox News is so hated that the Democrats wouldn't debate on the channel and it took years to get Hillary Clinton on The Factor (and that was only after it was evident that she had basically lost the anti-war, ultra-liberal base). I know some will probably laugh at the thought of O'Reilly being an "independent." I've watched his show for years (not so much lately because it's become too tabloid-like) and he's always claimed to an independent.
If one actually takes the time to evaluate him on the issues, he is quite moderate. I've heard him on several occasions on his show say something to the effect if he had to do it all of over again he would not support the war in Iraq but now that we are there we must be successful. That's certainly not a hawkish "neo-con." A few weeks ago I listened to a portion of his radio show and he was steaming mad about gas prices and railing against oil companies. He sounded like a populist, sorta like John Edwards. However, I don't recall him call supporting the wind-fall taxes on oil companies. He also believes global warming exists. Well, I guess one can argue that's not really a partisan issue since everyone's buying into global warming these days.
Liberals can argue he's hyper-partisan because of whom he chooses to attack and they would have a point. He saves his tirades for Daily Kos, MoveOn.org, Al Franken and Code Pink types. But truthfully aren't those easy targets? I think it would be absolutely foolish for conservatives to viciously go after a pundit for taking on Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh. I would say, "Have at it!"
The only area I can see him as a ideological hardliner is more on social issues. He's not for gay marriage. He was on the "War on Christmas" band wagon. He targeted a Kansas abortion clinic doing late term abortions.
However, his position is more nuanced on gay rights. He supports civil unions. In an interview with Mike Wallace he said he was for gun control and is also against the death penalty. Here's the video:
So that doesn't sound like a conservative talking head to me. Still he and Fox News continue to have the reputation of being a Republican media tool. I actually appreciate his independent streak. What I don't like about O'Reilly is the way he interviews. He interrupts guests, shouts, and has a huge temper. I'm sure that's one of the reason he has become a such a punching bag for those who disagree with him.
Let's compare O'Reilly's show with what's going on MSNBC. The person they have opposing O'Reilly in the same time slot is a hard liner, Keith Olbermann. His positions aren't nuanced, they come directly from the left blogosphere. He hates President Bush and dreams of impeachment. He hardly has guests on his show that oppose his point of view. He turned against Hillary Clinton as soon as the left blogosphere did and compared her to a Republican.
I know some would say that Olbermann is MSNBC's answer to the successful O'Reilly. In fact, "The O'Reilly Factor" continues to beat "Countdown" in ratings. I would argue there's a big difference between the two. Fox News didn't let O'Reilly anchor on election nights during this long Democratic primary. They know the difference between political commentators and having neutral journalists cover election night results. Sadly, MSNBC didn't do the same this year.
Perhaps, if Keith Olberman wants to beat Bill O'Reilly in the ratings he should take a few cues from him. He should be more interesting and have at least a little diversity in his commentary. All one has to do is look at Daily Kos to know what Olbermann will talk about. That's boring. He should invite more people who hold opposing views.
I've heard Bill O'Reilly and Fox News being called a lot of things. Liberals say the news network is biased to the right. That's probably true. I can't imagine Brit Hume, the D.C. managing editor, voting for Sen. Barack Obama this fall. However, he doesn't overtly cheer on a certain political party. I can stomach bias, what I can't stand is advocacy. I've heard liberals call O'Reilly a loud mouth. That's true. However, he's not designated to do news. He does political commentary and it's more nuanced analysis than he's given credit for.
Update: I wanted to make sure I had his position on Iraq right. Here's what I found.
All I can say is this disgusting. It would be really noble if a prominent atheist would send a message to him this type of hateful language is inappropriate. Yes, Christian groups should be able to speak out about this but it would be so much more powerful if someone in his own community would call him out. Here it is from the article:
(CNSNews.com) - Comments by HBO's Bill Maher insulting the Pope and calling Catholicism a "cult" that promotes "organized pedophilia" have stirred resentment among many American Catholics upset he would say this the week before Pope Benedict XVI visits the United States.
The comments were made on HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on Friday, April 11. Maher went into a long monologue on his program comparing the Catholic church to a polygamous cult -- the Fundamentalist Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints -- which was raided on April 3 and whose founder, Warren Jeffs, was convicted last year for being an accessory to the rape of a teenage girl.
Bill Maher compared the Texas scandal and its latest alleged abuse with the sexual abuse scandal that rocked the Catholic Church in the United States in 2002.
"I'd like to tip off law enforcement to an even larger child-abusing religious cult," Maher told his audience. "Its leader also has a compound, and this guy not only operates outside the bounds of the law, but he used to be a Nazi and he wears funny hats. That's right, the Pope is coming to America this week and, ladies, he's single."
I don't know where MSNBC gets their political "commentators" from but if I had to guess I would say they hold an audition and pick the people who make the most outrageous claims. In this clip Chris Matthews says that if Hillary Clinton doesn't start a war Roger Ailes and his ilk "will kill her."
Notice how they are all laughing at his comment.
Another MSNBC commentator had to offer an on-air apology for saying that Chelsea Clinton is being "pimped out."
I don't mean to pick on MSNBC. I've heard commentators from Fox News and CNN say some ridiculous stuff too. I just don't know if I've seen it happened two days in a row.
What a coincidence I mentioned Code Pink earlier today in my post which I wrote before I saw this video and look at the disrespectful stunt they pulled today:
Do these women really think tactics like these are going to help their cause?
