Pharyngula: Well, this cheered me up immensely

#1

The Edward R. Murrow quote was a very thought provoking ending to the commentary. I hope the Bush administration reads it.

Posted by: Paguroidea | August 31, 2006 5:31 AM

#2

Ouch!

Posted by: p | August 31, 2006 5:49 AM

#3

I need to see stuff like this to remind there is still a measure of sanity in the US, even in these dark times. Thanks for posting it.

Posted by: Dr. Strangelove | August 31, 2006 5:55 AM

#4

Now there's something you'll never hear from fox news. Thanks for the post.

Posted by: brodie | August 31, 2006 6:04 AM

#5

This is great to hear. However I don't think you can compare Bush to Neville Chamberlain. Neville Chamberlain stands head and shoulders above Bush. Although history doesn't remember him kindly he did take steps to prepare Britain against the coming storm. Failing to realize the full evil that some men are capable of is far less a sin than actually going out and doing that evil.

Posted by: Ronald Brak | August 31, 2006 7:32 AM

#6

Thank you for the post!

Keith Olbermann deserves a standing ovation for his words and patriotism, he is a true American.

As for the Bush administration; hopefully at some point they will have to face consequences of their profoundly immoral acts.

Posted by: Fernando Magyar | August 31, 2006 7:34 AM

#7

When Keith becomes angry he's at his best.

His evisceration of O'Reilly's accusation of American soldiers massacring Germans at Normandy was one for the archives.

.

Posted by: spork_incident | August 31, 2006 8:25 AM

#8

The fight against theocratic fascism begins at home. :-)

Posted by: Russell | August 31, 2006 8:31 AM

#9

Nice to see someone not afraid to speak the truth. However it is really too bad, that it is only now when it is almost fashionable to Bush Bash, that these sort of comments can be made. It seemed when we really needed these sorts of journalists, they were never to be found.

Posted by: Jeb | August 31, 2006 8:43 AM

#10

You think that barrage of historically ignorant tripe was admirable?

[snigger.wav]

Stick to biology, PZ. On that topic, you're fun to read. On politics and history, you're clueless.

Posted by: wolfwalker | August 31, 2006 9:26 AM

#11

Yeah, because everybody knows that there's absolutely no politics or history inherent in the science of biology.

[rollseyes.gif]

Posted by: Damon B. | August 31, 2006 9:33 AM

#12

You do not need to be a historian or political scientist to see that the Bush administration is a corrupt failure. You only need to be a notch above idiocy to be able to recognize it.

I'd also have to be an idiot to fall for the concern trolls. "Oh, you're so good at X, please, please don't do Y!" There's been a lot of that going on lately. Did some blithering conservative wanker somewhere put out a message that this strategy actually works? You should know by now that Republican strategies just lead to more confusion, chaos, and destruction.

Posted by: PZ Myers | August 31, 2006 9:40 AM

#13

Unfortunately, our current social climate is a bit confused. Bush and company isn't helping. Now, even doctors seem to be getting in on the act. This article scares me in some ways. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14576677/

While I don't mind people practicing their own religious beliefs (as long as the rest of us are left alone), I worry when doctors form groups that base their treatment options on religious belief. I would much rather have a doctor who offers all options, and who would respect someone's right not to choose the treatment, rather than a doctor who would inform you (or not) of a treatment and then refuse to perform it.

Posted by: Christian | August 31, 2006 9:46 AM

#14

I would be much more likely to go to a atheist doctor rather than one who thinks it's primarily god's will and and not really up to him.

How uncomfortable is it going to be when people are going to have to start asking what religion their doctors are and how it affects their practice of medicine?

Posted by: Steve_C | August 31, 2006 10:30 AM

#15

Re: concern trolls

They've been around a few years now, and consist not just of random doiks on the InterSeriesOfTubes, but also pundits in the media. "Helpful Republicans" were all over the place during the '04 Dem primaries, offering friendly advice such as "Oh, you don't want Dean, the man is clearly bonkers! Why don't you get behind Kerry, he's much more electable!"

I've even crossed paths again (on the Series of Tubes) with some of the selfsame Helpful Republicans after the '04 elections, and some of them have had the gall to say we "should have nominated Dean, I would totally have crossed the aisle for him." Riiiight.

And don't get me started on the Helpful Pseudo-Democrats like Richard Cohen. "Come on, fellow liberals, let's not antagonize the Bush administration too much! Be nicer and maybe they'll let us sit at the table!"

Posted by: minimalist | August 31, 2006 10:57 AM

#16

Primum non nocere

Posted by: Science Goddess | August 31, 2006 11:09 AM

#17

Unfortunately, Keith was far too erudite and eloquent - it will go over the heads of the majority of people who need to understand the message.

Posted by: Carlie | August 31, 2006 11:18 AM

#18

What was "historically ignorant" about that KO piece? Neville Chamberlain didn't try to appease Hitler? Britain didn't get firebombed? Nixon and McCarthy weren't self-serving, vindictive people?

This blog is not a place where unsubstantiated statements go unchallenged, while simultaneously being taken as self-evident fact.

Regarding KO's eloquence, it's about time someone felt the need to be so. It still wasn't a terribly eloquent piece, but comparing it to the "hard words" the Democrats have for the Bushies lately, KO's segment might as well be an "I have a dream" speech.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 31, 2006 11:31 AM

#19

The thing about bush that did it for me was right after 9/11. I was thinking, here we have the biggest opportunity in 50 years to band together as a country. I thought the communal feeling in the air could be applied to our most intractable problems--social security, campaign reform, tax reform, healthcare, environmental issues. Bush could have done anything.

I was dismayed when it became apparent that to Bush, 9/11 was a political Christmas present. While making bipartisan noises in public he moved immediately to 1) entrench his political party and 2) legislate his social conservatism. That's all.

He had no vision.

Posted by: Adam | August 31, 2006 11:31 AM

#20

What was "historically ignorant" about that KO piece? Neville Chamberlain didn't try to appease Hitler? Britain didn't get firebombed? Nixon and McCarthy weren't self-serving, vindictive people?

This blog is not a place where unsubstantiated statements go unchallenged, while simultaneously being taken as self-evident fact.

Regarding KO's eloquence, it's about time someone felt the need to be so. It still wasn't a terribly eloquent piece, but comparing it to the "hard words" the Democrats have for the Bushies lately, KO's segment might as well be an "I have a dream" speech.

Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 31, 2006 11:32 AM

#21

I *am* a historian, Mr. Wolfwalker, and while I'm not sure about the accuracy of Keith O's take on British appeasement, I can tell you that any decent student in one of my survey classes could have predicted the Iraq clusterfuck with breathtaking accuracy.

You want some good historically-ignorant tripe, consult the Heritage Foundation website, or head on over to PNAC, or any other think-tank with a neocon axe to grind. Or read just about anything that came out of Don Rumsfeld's mouth. "Delusional" doesn't even begin to describe it.

Posted by: Bokanovsky Process | August 31, 2006 11:33 AM

#22

The thing about bush that did it for me was right after 9/11. I was thinking, here we have the biggest opportunity in 50 years to band together as a country. I thought the communal feeling in the air could be applied to our most intractable problems--social security, campaign reform, tax reform, healthcare, environmental issues. Bush could have done anything.

I was dismayed when it became apparent that to Bush, 9/11 was a political Christmas present. While making bipartisan noises in public he moved immediately to 1) entrench his political party and 2) legislate his social conservatism. That's all.

He had no greater vision.

Posted by: Adam | August 31, 2006 11:33 AM

#23

Damn internets...

Posted by: BlueIndependent | August 31, 2006 11:33 AM

#24

gak You couldn't delete one of those for me, could you PZ?

Posted by: Adam | August 31, 2006 11:35 AM

#25

Possibly one of the reasons the British and French failed to correctly assess the situation in 1938 is because their countries were filled with pundits screaming, 'It's 1914! It's 1914!"

Posted by: lockean | August 31, 2006 11:40 AM

#26

Your resident Christian here. Just so you all understand, not every person who believes in that big guy in the sky goosesteps behind Bush lite.

I am from Texas, lived here all my life. What Bush was able to do in Texas as governor was get Repubs and Dems to agree on things and get things done. What is amazing is that he kept the "I am a uniter, not a divider" theme, and did the total opposite once he became the transient resident of the White House.

Posted by: DP | August 31, 2006 11:47 AM

#27

I have to confess I long-ago cashed out on the 24-hour news networks, full as they are of sensationalism, false dichotomies (science/political expert vs. dingbat with a website/Ann Coulter), etc. MSNBC viewers, how common is this type of thing? Is this the rare three minutes of skepticism, or has the network been improving? (Or have I been wrong all along?)

Posted by: Jason | August 31, 2006 11:50 AM

#28

It's been a good idea to ask about your doctor's religion for a long time. Our family doctor 35 years ago was a fundamentalist (which we didn't know); he sutured a nasty collection of lacerations on my 13 year-old sister's back, doing a very basic job, and later expressed satisfaction that she obviously would not be wearing a bikini when she got older. (My sister healed very well, though the scars are still noticeable; my parents regret not having gone to a plastic surgeon.) A couple of years later it emerged that he wouldn't prescribe birth control pills to unmarried women. Given the increasing radicalization of religious conservatives, I suspect that today he would refuse to prescribe them at all. Another doctor involved in my grandfather's treatment as he was dying of lung cancer accused my uncle of 'playing God' because my uncle refused (in accord with my grandfather's express wishes) to allow tube feeding. My family is very vigilant now about making sure we have a doctor who either agrees with our views or at least who will respect them.

Posted by: Bryson Brown | August 31, 2006 11:58 AM

#29

I was practically cheering yesterday when he was doing it.

Not only is Olbermann classy; not only is he devastatingly articulate -- he's also a damn sight better-looking than Limbaugh or O'Reilly. (And, come to think of it, Coulter.)

Posted by: Warren | August 31, 2006 11:59 AM

#30

Olbermann is consistently skeptical and harsh when it comes to calling bullshit when he sees it. He favorite thing to do is to gleefully point out when the right wing pundits lie or say crazy shit on cable news... usually Fuax News. He drives O'lielly nuts.

He's daily "worse person in the world!" segment is always fun.

Posted by: Steve_C | August 31, 2006 12:03 PM

#31

'Concern troll' -- useful term!

Another species of 'concern troll' I've been noticing for several years is the Republican who wanders into a left-leaning blog and offers earnest, helpful advice on what all you liberals have to do to start winning elections like us Republicans. Usually contains tossed off bon mots like how liberals need to quit 'hating America', 'hating god', etc. How nice that wingnuts want to help us.

Then, of course, when you point out how full of shit they are, out comes the inevitable That's why you moonbats never win any elections, real Americans can't stand how shrill you are. Swell. Thanks. You done now?

Posted by: George Cauldron | August 31, 2006 12:03 PM

#32

You can't eviscerate something that's already gutless.

Posted by: Jim Wynne | August 31, 2006 12:04 PM

#33

You do not need to be a historian or political scientist to see that the Bush administration is a corrupt failure. You only need to be a notch above idiocy to be able to recognize it.

Even the idiots are starting to see the light:

http://www.udargo.com/mub/2006/05/bush_losing_core_supporters.html

Posted by: Max Udargo | August 31, 2006 12:15 PM

#34

I sent the link of the vid to a friend of mine with whom I typically agree on most subjects. He rabidly attacked K.O. for using the Nazi videos while making his statement. Said it was sensastionalism and that it added nothing to the discussion. One quote of his was this.

Olbermann's comments and supporting footage did not elevate the debate. It simply oversimplified the statements made by rumsfeld and rabble roused the viewer with the likes of "Rumsfeld just called you a Nazi, are you gonna sit there and take that?". In my view, he did not dissect and discredit the analogy, he simply evoked powerful imagery of over six million needless deaths to illustrate that he felt rumsfelds logic was absurd. I thought it was callous, cowardly, and unnecessary. If he had a strong point to begin with, I was not able to hear it due to a low signal to noise ratio.

I of course think he's missing the point. The point is not to drum up a frenzy of fear by showing the footage, its to illustrate exactly how depraved, false and dishonest an analogy Rummy is trying to make and how low this adminsitration is willing to stoop to drum up fear and supoort their failed policies.

Does anyone else think K.O. would have been better served by not using the footage?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 31, 2006 12:16 PM

#35

What is amazing is that he kept the "I am a uniter, not a divider" theme, and did the total opposite once he became the transient resident of the White House.

Oh, I don't know about that--he's got 60% of the country united across party lines on his job performance, for example

Posted by: RavenT | August 31, 2006 12:22 PM

#36

Does anyone else think K.O. would have been better served by not using the footage?

I'm sorry, but aren't THEY the ones who are dragging up WWII, Neville Chamberlain and fascism? They're the ones trying to exploit the horrors of that era. Olbermann was responding by attacking their analogies.

Posted by: Max Udargo | August 31, 2006 12:27 PM

#37

He infact turned the analogy back on to Rumsfeld. They are behaving like the Chamberlain in the historical sense... ) we know better than you, we're the adults, you are shrill and out of your depth.)

Posted by: Steve_C | August 31, 2006 12:34 PM

#38

Unfortunately, Keith was far too erudite and eloquent - it will go over the heads of the majority of people who need to understand the message.

That's a really good point. It was a great speech to warm the hearts of those of us who already see Bush's failures. It was brilliant -- which is part of the problem.

In 2004 Kerry already had the vote of every single person who was smart enough to know all the words in Olbermann's piece. Yet Bush still won. What the Republicans have unfortunately recognized is that if they proactively shun intellect they will become heroes of the idiot majority.

Posted by: JR | August 31, 2006 12:35 PM

#39

You can't eviscerate something that's already gutless.

True! But few people here would use "gutless" or "spineless" as pejoratives.

Posted by: Apikoros | August 31, 2006 12:42 PM

#40

Olbermann was responding by attacking their analogies.

That was the point I repeatidly made to him. His next response was that K.O. was not elevating the discussion and was only practicing attack journalism, to which I said..

Who says Olbermann or any political commentator has an obligation to, as you put it, "elevate" the debate. Exposing the absurdity of actions taken by politicians is an important function of the fourth estate of American politics. Critiques do not have to spark a debate between one side and the other, they can exist purely on the merits of exposing the ineptitude and baseless claims of the target.

It was frustrating trying to explain the significance of Rummy's comments in light of the administrations' policies dealing with silencing dissent and limiting personal freedoms to someone who actually agrees with me on those points but see's the Nazi appeasment analogy as just another rhetorical jab that is meaningless and K.O.'s response as sensationalism(whew that was long). Granted each "Talking head" has a responsibility to his employer to bring in the ratings, but I did not see this commentary as anything but directly on the mark.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 31, 2006 12:43 PM

#41

You're friend is almost the equivalent of a concern troll.

Part of the reason democrats have suffered is that they have been willing to take the hits below the belt and not point it out to the referee.

K.O. is just hitting back with an punch above the belt. The ref knows the difference.

Posted by: Steve_C | August 31, 2006 12:48 PM

#42

...

I'm another who thought Olbermann's language was a bit too high-toned.

Still ... damn! I'm glad he said it. This and the "Is Bush an Idiot?" piece are politically resonant.

I kept wishing for a "Have you at last no sense of shame, sir" moment all during the Bush administration, but I guess the Bushies are going out like the tide instead.

Slowly ... but surely.

...

Posted by: Hank Fox | August 31, 2006 12:51 PM

#43

And ppl (rd: lbrls) wndr why Olbrmnn's rtngs r n th crppr.

Posted by: Jason | August 31, 2006 12:54 PM

#44

I just discovered Olberman on YouTube. (don't have cable) Frankly, as a Canadian I was beginning to think that the Republicans had completely taken over. I have been searching through his O'Reilly rants and that clip was the best thing I've seen so far. Thank you.

Posted by: remy | August 31, 2006 12:55 PM

#45

It's a bit of a comfort to know that, while Keith's ratings for the last year are up 55%, Faux News' combined viewership is down 28%. Granted, the cable news networks don't have huge numbers of viewers but the trend is certainly worth a toast. To Keith Olbermann and not mincing words!

Posted by: raindogzilla | August 31, 2006 12:57 PM

#46

Jinxy's back, time for the Vowel-o-Matic 2000™!

Posted by: George Cauldron | August 31, 2006 1:04 PM

#47

Nice try Jason. You should quit listening to O'Reilly. His numbers have been slipping since last year. Olbermann's number have been going up.

This is SO good.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=re4_xOqmedA

Heeeere kitty kitty kitty.

Posted by: Steve_C | August 31, 2006 1:05 PM

#48

It's nice seeing someone in the MSM taking on Rummy ...

But I thought that this critique of his analogy was more on target:
the-rights-banal-and-inept-use-of-the-appeasement-mis-analogy

Posted by: wm | August 31, 2006 1:07 PM

#49

Another Bill O smackdown over ratings.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=kB9q5baavYM

Victory is mine!

Posted by: Steve_C | August 31, 2006 1:30 PM

#50

Now there's something you'll never hear from fox news
So you watch Fox news, brodie? If you don't, why should you care what they have say? It's not like you can't watch ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS or read Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, anything from the AP or Reuters news services if you wanted. Sheez. Why should you even care what's on one little network when you have all the others spewing more compatable kinds of opinions to wallowing in?

Posted by: NatureSelectedMe | August 31, 2006 1:42 PM

#51

So you watch Fox news, brodie? If you don't, why should you care what they have say?

So if you don't watch a certain news program, you're not supposed to have ANY OPINION about them? Odd reasoning.

Posted by: George Cauldron | August 31, 2006 1:46 PM

#52

All, please be sure to send kudos to Keith at MSNBC.

Thanks

Posted by: George | August 31, 2006 1:53 PM

#53

Wow - I never watch tv news, so I didn't even know about Keith Olbermann. Not that I feel myself to be a snob or anything, but I can't handle the 30 seconds of news between 30 minutes of fluff on the usual channels and don't have time to deal with tv often anyway, especially not during primetime. I just checked him out a bit on youtube and I now [heart] Keith almost as much as Colbert. (Stephen wins because he's cuter.)

Posted by: Carlie | August 31, 2006 2:07 PM

#54

I think everyone should watch a little bit of Fox News occasionally, as much as can safely be done without killing too many brain cells, so as to be aware of how much lying bullshit is brazenly peddled to, and swallowed by, conservatards in the guise of "news". You'll gain a new level of understanding of just how ignorant a large segment of the population is- they're not merely uninformed, they've been systematically misinformed and indeed, inoculated against reality.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 31, 2006 2:09 PM

#55

I've seen little bits of Fox news in waiting rooms at the mechanic, at the doctor's office, etc. It scares me.
What really scares me? I know a fox-lover who assigned his home-schooled 13 year old daughter to do a report on Bill O'Reilly.
What also scares me - my own father-in-law finally caved in and got cable tv this year, only because he wanted to see Fox news.

Posted by: Carlie | August 31, 2006 2:29 PM

#56

So you watch Fox news, brodie? If you don't, why should you care what they have say? It's not like you can't watch ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS or read Time, Newsweek, New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times, anything from the AP or Reuters news services if you wanted.

I love when someone comes in charging ahead with the Liberal MSM attack. The bias that may or may not be exibited on all those outlets you mentioned doesn't come close to the complete and utter bias and mis-information spread by Fox.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 31, 2006 2:37 PM

#57

Jason,

According to your leader, since I am a Christian, I cannot be a "librul." And I love KO. As many have pointed out to you in that oh-so-friendly pharyngula way, KO's ratings are not in the crapper, but actually increasing. So, your vowel-challenged post has no basis in reality.

Next time you want to throw around an epithet (really, you can look it up in the dictionary), you should really get your facts straight first.

Posted by: DP | August 31, 2006 2:54 PM

#58

Bryson Brown:

Another doctor involved in my grandfather's treatment as he was dying of lung cancer accused my uncle of 'playing God' because my uncle refused (in accord with my grandfather's express wishes) to allow tube feeding.

In what bizarre alternate universe does refusing an invasive, long-term medical procedure specifically designed to artificially prolong a clearly failing life qualify as "playing God"?

This is yet another example of the "it's not fascism when we do it" rhetoric the Right can't seem to avoid. Not that they're trying to.

Posted by: Dan | August 31, 2006 3:01 PM

#59

Steve Labonne, it's funny how you use the term "inoculated against reality" when it is Keith Olbermann who seems to be disconnected. I don't know if you've actually read the transcript of what Rumsfeld said in his speech but here it is Keith seems to have Rumsfeld's point backwards. Keith is equating appeasement with action. How distorted is that? I know Keith is doing it for dramatic effect in criticizing the administration attitude that the democrats find so repulsive. They would rather rail behind someone who said "I voted for it before I voted against it." So a clear direction on what to do against islamo-facsism, the "new type of fascism" that Rumsfeld mentioned is confusing. Keith's comments are blistered with half-truths and distortions but it's the kind of stuff liberals feed on. Is it even possible for a liberal to talk about the administration without throwing in ..Mr. Cheney, and their cronies, have - inadvertently or intentionally - profited and benefited, both personally, and politically. Yes we all know the war was started to help Halliburton.

Posted by: NatureSelectedMe | August 31, 2006 3:04 PM

#60

So a clear direction on what to do against islamo-facsism,

Whenever one sees that word, everything else is relentlessly predictable...

Posted by: George Cauldron | August 31, 2006 3:07 PM

#61

Nature,

You must not be familiar with the Neocons' PNAC or Karl Rove's "attack with the total opposite of reality" tactics. These guys don't understand MidEast history, and the whole idea that we can "force democracy" is ludicrous. Go talk to someone who isn't limited by reality.

Posted by: DP | August 31, 2006 3:19 PM

#62

Thank you, NatureSelectedMe. If we ever need an incoherent, oblivious troll, we know who to call on.

Posted by: Numad | August 31, 2006 3:29 PM

#63

Olberman is not equating appeasement with action.
He's equating this administration with hubris and arrogance.
The same way Chamberlain was hubristic and arrogant.

Rumsfeld accuses over half the population of this country as being the equivalent of appeasers because they have the gall to criticize him and the administration. And for
wanting us to find a way out of Iraq... because what's obvious to most americans is that
their plan is clearly not working.

Posted by: Steve_C | August 31, 2006 3:33 PM

#64

Keith is equating appeasement with action.

No, he's equating stupidly ignoring public outcry and a "your government knows best" attitude with... well... stupidly ignoring public outcry and a "your government knows best" attitude. The point of the comparison was not the actual actions taken (or not taken) but the manner in which decisions were made and the fact that action and inaction can both be ruinous if the decisions aren't thought through. These comparisons can be tough, but I think you're deliberately trying to misread this one.

Posted by: Troublesome Frog | August 31, 2006 3:38 PM

#65

..If we ever need an incoherent, oblivious troll..
We can call on you, right?
If you disagree what I've written, please comment on it. Say something specific. You know how long it took me to find the actual speech by Rumsfeld? Go ahead, look for it with Google. The first few pages are criticisms of it. Please say something substantial, it'll make this thread so much more interesting then the constant "You're a troll". How tiresome.

Posted by: NatureSelectedMe | August 31, 2006 3:44 PM

#66

These comparisons can be tough, but I think you're deliberately trying to misread this one.
I know what Keith was trying to say but It was a bad analogy, IMO, in response to Rumsfeld. Rumsfeld was saying we can't appease the bad guys. It won't get you anywhere to try. Rumsfeld was talking about the whole War on Terror as I read it.

Posted by: NatureSelectedMe | August 31, 2006 3:53 PM

#67

Another doctor involved in my grandfather's treatment as he was dying of lung cancer accused my uncle of 'playing God' because my uncle refused (in accord with my grandfather's express wishes) to allow tube feeding.

An excellent reason for making out a Power of Attorney for Care, including Advanced Medical Directives (or whatever the equivalent may be in one's particular jurisdiction, assuming it's enlightened enough to have such a thing). I think that pretty much gives your designated decision-maker power to tell the doctor exactly what treatments are allowed under what circumstances (and docs don't necessarily have to be religious to believe they're God's annointed).

(For the record: I have a vague idea my GP is Catholic. About all I know is, when he came to see my wife in labour, he had just come from Christmas Eve church service. It's never been an issue. But religion seldom is, in my liberal neck of the woods).

Posted by: Steve Watson | August 31, 2006 3:59 PM

#68

Strike 3! Take a hike, jerkwad.

Posted by: Stogoe | August 31, 2006 3:59 PM

#69

PZ, might I suggest a new rule for trolls? Anyone who misuses "then" for "than" gets sent to the penalty box. I'll give them one warning.

Sorry, it is one of my pet peeves.

Posted by: MReap | August 31, 2006 4:01 PM

#70

The analogy is that Chamberlain, McCarthy, Nixon, et al, believed they were infallible and knew everything and nothing would change their minds, and they were completely and utterly wrong. In this way they are exactly like the Bush Administration.

Posted by: Stogoe | August 31, 2006 4:01 PM

#71

I know what Keith was trying to say...

This is a bald-faced lie. Anybody reading through the comments above can see that you did NOT understand it until it was explained to you. Now you're backtracking and trying to cover up your embarrassing stupidity. Typical conservatard behavior, and very Fox-like.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 31, 2006 4:01 PM

#72

Leaving Iraq is not appeasing anyone. It's the smart thing to do.
We've completely screwed that country up. They are not competent
enough to make the situation better, riding it out is not a solution.
They can't even manage this country well.

Posted by: Steve_C | August 31, 2006 4:04 PM

#73

I know what Keith was trying to say...

This is a bald-faced lie. Anybody reading through the comments above can see that you did NOT understand it until it was explained to you. Now you're backtracking and trying to cover up your embarrassing stupidity. Typical conservatard behavior, and very Fox-like.

Posted by: Steve LaBonne | August 31, 2006 4:04 PM

#74

If anyone is curious. There's a timeline up at Mother Jones about the run up to
the war in Iraq.

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

Posted by: Steve_C | August 31, 2006 4:11 PM

#75

"We can call on you, right?"

Nice schoolyard comeback, there.

"Please say something substantial"

I think I've responded to your first comment with as much substance as it deserved. I really wouldn't know where to start if I wanted to spend the energy in untangling it, in any case. Every proposition is an exercice in "incoherence* and obliviousness", to paraphrase myself.

Your third comment is a less muddied:

"Rumsfeld was saying we can't appease the bad guys."

I think everyone gathered that. Olbermann doesn't give any indication that he didn't gather that. Either you're overestimating the credibility and strenght of the disturbingly common cries of appeasement, an overestimation that forces you to believe that anyone who disagrees with it didn't receive the notion correctly; or that you're misreading it on purpose, as someone wrote earlier.

If it's the former, let me assure you that, almost certainly, everyone here as heard or read that analogy before.

*Incoherent in its ideas. I really wouldn't risk irony by calling someone else on their disjointed english syntax.

Posted by: Numad | August 31, 2006 4:12 PM

#76

There's no point in trying to start a debate with someone who commonly starts out with insults and paralogia, and then descends through the sewer grate.

Just an observation, not talking about anybody in particular.

Posted by: NelC | August 31, 2006 4:14 PM

#77

I am hoping that the blogging community will encourage its readers to contact MSNBC and tell them that Keith's sponsors will get first consideration when they decide to spend money. In this day and age this seems to me to be the most effective way to encourage and thank this valuable resource for the American People.

Posted by: Betsy Hutchins | August 31, 2006 4:23 PM

#78

Betsy Hutchins--Good point.

I stopped getting my news from TV years ago (the best thing about the Left end of the Internet is the news coverage is 'way more accurate, and sometimes years ahead of the off-line media; for example, other than the trolls, who here was surprised to learn that there weren't any WMDs in Iraq?), but I watch Olbermann most evenings I'm home. He's often hysterically funny, and, it's nice to see an anchor who isn't clueless.

Posted by: Molly, NYC | August 31, 2006 4:37 PM

#79

Keith is equating appeasement with action. How distorted is that?

The problem Keith is pointing out is that you can't reduce foreign policy choices to a simple dichotomy of "action" versus "inaction". The latter is not always "appeasement" in the sense of Munich; in fact it rarely is. The Cold War strategies of containment, for example, do not fit cleanly into either category, were (sometimes) well tailored to meet the strategic situation, and ultimately worked.

Rumsfeld and others using this "appeasement" frame to describe counter-terrorism and counter-proliferation only show their ignorance of the field of international relations. Islamic terrorists lack even a scintilla of the military capacity of Nazi Germany, and haven't been "appeased" in the sense of Munich in any case I can think of.

Neo-conservatives like Rumsfeld are the cranks of international relations, just as creationists are the cranks of evolutionary biology. They keep revising an outdated and oversimplified world view, but they'll never find any empirical validation. There is a mainstream debate of fairly wide range---from realists like Henry Kissinger to liberal internationlists like Joseph Nye. I'd take people from the right or left of that reality-based debate any day over the grandiose daydreamers like Rummy.

Posted by: mss | August 31, 2006 4:38 PM

#80

Nice schoolyard comeback, there.
I thought that was all you deserved. :0

Either you're overestimating the credibility and strenght of the disturbingly common cries of appeasement, an overestimation that forces you to believe that anyone who disagrees with it didn't receive the notion correctly; or that you're misreading it on purpose, as someone wrote earlier.

Now what are you trying to say? This is kind of muddled. The cries for appeasement are insignificant? Rumsfeld was blowing them out of proportion? Tell that to the French or the U.N.. Now that would have been something Keith could have talked about. But he didn't. His analogy was stupid. The rest of the piece was the same tiresome talking points that liberals use whenever they talk about the administration.
I'm surprised he didn't throw in how Gore really won in 2000

Posted by: NatureSelectedMe | August 31, 2006 4:51 PM

#81

Nature, Jason, etc.,

Are you really, truly incapable of seeing the abject contempt people like Rumsfeld display for you when they expect you to believe that the only alternative to their disasterous policies was and is to do nothing? When they make bad analogies between Iraq and WWII? Are you really that stupid? Because, my friends, I am not so cynical that I believe you are really that stupid. I have more faith in your intelligence than does Secretary Rumsfeld.

So is it all just sport to you? Like throwing Ann Coulter's arguments into a serious discussion, not because you believe any of her arguments, but simply because you like to watch "liberals" get angry? Is that all you have to offer to public discourse at this crucial moment?

Posted by: Max Udargo | August 31, 2006 4:55 PM

#82

who commonly starts out with insults and paralogia
Good thing you're not talking about me, I don't even know what paralogia means so it would be a wasted insult. :)

Posted by: NatureSelectedMe | August 31, 2006 4:56 PM

#83

Neo-conservatives like Rumsfeld are the cranks of international relations, just as creationists are the cranks of evolutionary biology. They keep revising an outdated and oversimplified world view, but they'll never find any empirical validation. There is a mainstream debate of fairly wide range---from realists like Henry Kissinger to liberal internationlists like Joseph Nye. I'd take people from the right or left of that reality-based debate any day over the grandiose daydreamers like Rummy.

No comment, just thought it would look better in bold.

Posted by: Max Udargo | August 31, 2006 4:59 PM

#84

"Now what are you trying to say? This is kind of muddled. The cries for appeasement are insignificant?"

I don't think it was muddled enough to account for your aberrant reading of it. "Cries OF appeasement", not "cries FOR appeasement". As in someone crying "appeasers!" at dissenters. As in what Rumsfeld is doing.

You seem unable or unwilling to reason beyong the framework of the analogy.

"Now that would have been something Keith could have talked about."

And what is that?

Posted by: Numad | August 31, 2006 5:05 PM

#85

Max,

I see Rumsfeld as doing his job. Bush decided to finish the war his father started and Rumsfeld is performing his job. Disagree with his performance if you will, but that's his job. When he talks to the press, I'm sure any war analogy will do. The left likes to use Vietnam.

So is it all just sport to you? Like throwing Ann Coulter's arguments into a serious discussion,

What serious discussion? Anyone who disagrees is a troll right? A circle jerk is not a serious discussion.

watch "liberals" get angry

I'm sorry, it is fun to watch. It's like teasing my cat. I don't know why. Hey, the bold was a nice touch.

Posted by: NatureSelectedMe | August 31, 2006 5:11 PM

#86

Nature, you aren't succeeding in making me angry, but you are providing a limited form of amusement. If you wish to make me incredulous, you will need to take some lessons from Jason.

Posted by: Christian | August 31, 2006 5:19 PM

#87

Numad,

So what's the difference? Cries of appeasement are for appeasement, aren't they?
If Keith made your point then (than...? don't want trouble with mreap) I would have found it more interesting.

Posted by: NatureSelectedMe | August 31, 2006 5:20 PM

#88

The UN was willing to approve military action in Afghanistan.

The "french" as well as many others in the U.N. didn't believe our case for
invading Iraq. And guess what... they were right. Who were they trying to
appease?

Saddam had no nulcear progam. He did not try to puchase Uranium from Niger.
He had no mobile labs. He had no relationship with Al-Queda. He had nothing to
do with 9/11.

Almost all of the terrorists from 9/11 were Saudi. Seems we did some appeasing.
We're no longer in Saudi Arabia. We're in Kuwait and Qatar now.

The democrat have talking points because they choose to recognize reality.

Posted by: Steve_C | August 31, 2006 5:21 PM

Pharyngula

Search this blog

Profile

Random Quote

Recent Posts

A Taste of Pharyngula

Recent Comments

Archives

Blogroll

Other Information

Subscribe via Email

Well, this cheered me up immensely

TrackBacks

Comments