?

Log in

No account? Create an account

Windmills and Lances

confessions of a quixotic unicorn fanatic

Previous Entry Share Next Entry
Olbermann's Last Night Reverts to "Toxic Rhetoric"
roycalbeck
Specifically, Keith Olbermann had a guest on, and they discussed the idea of a Republican shutdown of government --- an argument going around for the last month or so, based entirely on the statement of certain Republicans that they would de-fund the health-care bill if the Senate and President Obama do not follow the House's lead in repealing it.

Olbermann's guest immediately likened this to taking a hostage, and then stated that "if you're going to take a hostage, you have to prove you're willing to shoot it".

While this is, of course, merely rhetoric, it's the precise sort of "toxic" language that not two weeks ago Olbermann himself made an impassioned plea for all parties to put aside. Not only did Olbermann say nothing against the "hostage shooting" talk, but he nodded and smiled in agreement.


And so it seems that the gloves are off already --- all over again.


  • 1
And yet, no one seems to remember what happened in the Fed shutdown back in 1995 with Clinton.

That was not so much a case of who won... as who lost.

Indeed -- but the MSM is much less influential today than it was then. If the 1995 shutdown happened today, Clinton would probably have gotten the blame for it in the minds of most Americans.

Personally I think that there should never be an instance where the government shuts down anything as a "hostage situation".

There's no reason as residents of this country that we should be inconvenienced because a bunch of political buttheads on both sides can't come to an agreement.

It's like having two people stand on either side of a sick person and one says "Well if you don't hop on one foot I'll hold back this guy's meds!".

There's no reason why the residents of this country should have a federal government so economically intrusive that it shutting down for a few months would be a problem.

Also a very good point.

Unfortunately short of complete failure and collapse I don't think the government will "self shrink" any time soon. :-(

The gloves were ever put back on? I hadn't noticed either side actually agreeing to do such, just moaning that the other party should start.

Olbermann specifically claimed he was going to do so. -:/

The left never had any intention of ever toning down it's rhetoric.

~My words aren't dangerous but people's words about my words are dangerous.~

That's all I've heard from the right since the start of this mess.

Is it really that "people's words about my words are dangerous"?

It seems to me that trying to avoid words that would set off insane people is a fruitless exercise.

I think that the point of the writing above is not "danger" but "hypocrisy." The complaints (and legislation) about language as actually dangerous are generally from the left.

In Loughner's case, evidence seems to point to the communist/nihilist film Zeitgeist as a primary influence -- but I've not seen demands from anyone on the right that it should be outlawed. Certainly there is no general hue and cry to this effect, despite how conspiracy-laden and otherwise insanely nonsense-packed the film and its follow-on work is.

===|==============/ Level Head


Re: Dangerous words?

He was also a huge fan of Ayn Rand. When you're dealing with a crazy person, there's not going to be any rhyme or reason to their sources of madness because they're *CRAZY*.

Oh, and my statement was mostly aimed at Palin. She's the one that's more or less indicated her words were not dangerous, but the people talking back to her were.

Edited at 2011-01-22 07:26 pm (UTC)

He was also a huge fan of Ayn Rand.

He listed an Ayn Rand work on his book list -- but I have not encountered anyone stating that he was a fan, or was "profoundly" influenced by this as was said about his obsession with Zeitgeist.

Have you seen anything other than the appearance of one of Rand's books on a book list? A Rand enthusiast would go further than the fictional novel, it seems to me.

Patterns of delusion are indeed patterns, and while some are apparently random, a focus or general theme is often present. Not that it's preventable, I think, nor can Zeitgeist be "blamed" for the attacks in Tucson.

I was wryly amused at the Communist Party USA claiming, as recently as last night when I checked again, that Loughner's actions were because of the Tea Party.

===|==============/ Level Head

Was she talking about the stalker business? I didn't see the comment you're referring to, but I just encountered posts hoping the stalked succeeds:
I'm from Alaska and Sarah Palin is an embarrassment. I hope Christy comes up to Alaska and guts her like a fish. And while he's here I hope he chops up the rest of her family and feeds the bloody chunks of irritation to our polar bears. The ice caps are melting and they are hungry.
A lovely person, no doubt, this Chad.

I'm intrigued that the other posters generally find it ridiculous for a political figure (in this case, the most hated political figure by the Left) to be concerned about her safety.

I'd wager that no one gets more death threats than she does. But she is conservative, female, and effective -- such reaction is to be expected.

The nation's journalists would cheer at her assassination, I think, and would not be successful keeping this attitude from the published responses. "She brought it on herself," they'd say. "The chickens came home to roost" -- as if disagreeing politically really should carry a death sentence.

===|==============/ Level Head

  • 1