So Keith Olbermann's gone.
For now.
And the side of the room that is reveling in his departure will, of course, display their colors as do all vain beasts who strut and preen and demonstrate their bloated, overcompensating masculinity to their submissive minions.
And then, having flexed and posed thus, proceed to bob and weave through the onslaught of righteous criticism, disingenuously denying the truth about their actions, deploying their meme-machines to spout nonsense and calumny about their accusers.
And because the other side of the room -- along with wit, intelligence, reverence for history and mortality -- possesses a crippling introspection which is often an impediment to action, they do little to impede them, hoping for the eventual tripping-up of the bullies, the inevitable gaffe which reveals their corroded inner workings.
And, as always, it becomes abundantly clear that their drivel is merely the raving of a cornered and terrified animal on the verge of extinction, railing against all who would snuff out its lethal messages of racism, sexism, classism, corporatism. They accuse, they lie, they do everything they have been bred to do to survive. And in doing so, they drag down the system, they drag down humanity, forcing all to live by their antiquated rules and eye-rolling superstitions. The gun fetishes and the god fetishes amount to one big ignorance fetish, a sad commentary on the failure of the intellect to overcome instinct.
But for now, with the latest casualty in the struggle for progressive thought "mysteriously" leaving, the rest of the thinking world must once again stand by and endure the cartoon pomposity that the right so often depends upon, since truth and wisdom and taste are simply not in their repertoire.
Bray on.
For now.
Follow Steven Weber on Twitter: www.twitter.com/TheStevenWeber
Joseph A. Palermo: Corporate Media Loses a Progressive Voice
Richard Geldard: Countdown, Network and Mad As Hell
Craig Crawford: The Olbermann Factor
David Wild: "Keith Don't Go": A Farewell Playlist for Keith Olbermann
There's probably some rule of nature which prevents Hubble from spotting the Big Bang itself--something akin to our inability to call home from work before we get there. Wish I knew more (much more) about this subject--such as how long the Big Bang lasted, or if its duration can even be thought of in terms of time as we know it. Space/time, after all, obviously didn't exist before the BB.
I'm fascinated by the idea that the starting point of Everything may have happened quietly, even nonviolently.
How long did it take for time/space to sell out and lose its authenticity? To lose its original vision?
Not that you don't always attract the type yourself, Mr. Steve, but it was apparent on story after story about Keith this week that your piece had nailed the truth of it. It was if thousands never previously seen had thought the light was out and they could scurry out of the woodwork to munch on the fallen food. I was able to flip a switch a couple times though by commenting that so much newbie tro!!-hate was in fact a tribute to the man, and I sincerely hoped he was enjoying his favorite aperitif along with all these tributes of embarrassiÂng trivialnesÂs.
Welcome are their woes after this transient triumph when he again rises stronger from these ashes. Short-liveÂd indeed was their 'big-gloatÂ', and seemingly their memory, when Maher's incarnatioÂn on PoliticallÂy Incorrect was forced into metamorphoÂsis. Like Maher, fans of Keith's progressivÂe truth without shaded lens know, this was required to free him for higher pursuits than chaffing against the restraints of unfriendly corporate overlords. Perhaps, that very thought scares the woodwork crawlies the most. The food is there for just a very short time and it will soon be poison to them again.
Their 'big-gloat' mostly appears as an act of desperation and it even seems many subconsciously understand themselves this is the case.
I doubt it. It may, however, have been apparent *from* those stories.
The metaphors in your first paragraph are pretty decent but awkwardly employed.
"Welcome *are* their woes..." needs to be "Welcome *will be* their woes...." Why? Because you're talking about an event to come (Keith rising from the ashes).
Your English goes bye-bye for a couple sentences, and then we're back to roach/baseboard metaphors rendered in the best Mr. Spock style.
"Their 'big-gloat" mostly appears as an act of desperation..."? No, but it may *appear to have been* one. And no hyphen needed in "big gloat," since you're not using the phrase as an adjective.
It's been awhile since anyone's thrown this size load of defensive baloney at me.
Feel better? Good for you, but don't look now - your insecurity's showing.
Please keep hitting the light switch, Maestro, and making them scurry for cover.
Welcome be their woes to this transient triumph when he again rises stronger from these ashes. Short-lived indeed was their 'big-gloat', and seemingly their memory, when Maher's incarnation on Politically Incorrect was forced into metamorphosis. Like Maher, those seeing Keith's progressive truth without shaded lens know, this was required to free him for higher persuits than chaffing against the restraints of unfriendly corporate overlords. Perhaps, that very thought scares
"I decry religion as it is used inappropriÂately, misunderstÂood and misapplied by too, too many." And, "But religion is not nor should not be the basis forming a government because it is founded on, in my opinion, superstitiÂon and fear."
Please note that you've followed a qualified point ("I decry religion if....") with one that's across the board (religion based on "superstition and fear"). Religion is acceptable to you under certain circumstances, on one hand. On the other, it's not acceptable to you at all. Obviously, it can't be both.
And, though you see religion as corrupt to the core, our founders did not. Had they held the modern cyber-view that religion is dangerous, they would have banned it or at least put a fence around it. Instead, they promoted its growth.
The chief problem with this thread is that we're arguing with abstractions so huge as to be meaningless--platitudes about logic and reason, questions about what role religion played in the planning of our government, etc. We're tossing a bunch of cliches back and forth and we're so either/or-iented in our thinking, anyone who departs from script instantly becomes One of Them. I believe we can do better.
yes, the founding fathers spoke of god often, but as Stephen Hawkings points out, god is used throughout human history to explain phenomena unexplainable at the times.
the founding fathers expressly made our country one with a "freedom of religion". Thomas Jefferson said (1807) "among the inestimable of our blessings, also, is that ...of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; ..."
he didn't say or even imply jesus. he didn't even say god. you can worship as you please. but you can't ascribe your personal religious views on how i should to live my life.
it's really simple, not abstract at all.
I don't know. I wish I did. I read the reply and went to respond but it was gone. I have noticed a lot of strong but not abusive posts getting deleted. I don't fully understand why some posts are okay but others are not. As I moderator I can delete posts but rarely do. I like a spirited conversation for some of them actually end up as debates. Keep posting. It does not matter if your posts of profound or merely simple. Keep posting. Some get through. And don't worry about offending anyone. That happens for reasons beyond our control.
D.
Obama has caved on principle so many times, someone should come up with a "Bat" pun for his name. But Batbama doesn't work. Coal-bama, maybe? (Coal, cave.) Nahhh.
Steven suggests that too much introspection is the reason that we Dems don't fight back against the Party of the Rich. Funny--I see a lack of same. Problem is, we've had our butts whooped so many times, we've gotten quite defensive. Which is understandable, though not desirable. Two things we need to figure out how to do: 1) Come out for our own values, not simply react to the corrupt deeds of the other side, and 2) Learn, at long last, that you don't get the average person's vote unless you demonstrate respect for his or her values and beliefs.
In our media-dominated age, show trumps substance--obviously. It's not enough to have the common man's values at heart when we're acting like Yanni-addled refugees from a PBS fund drive. Repubs know how to play to the people even while betraying them. We do everything BUT play to the people, hoping that our motives alone are sufficient. Guess which approach wins?
now that is a stretch. regardless of your meaning behind that, it seems to be an inappropriate thing to say about our president, especially coming from the mouth of a christian.
zanti, there is an old saying that goes like this:
"It's a good thing you told me you are a christian, otherwise i might not have ever known."
"It's a good thing you told me you are a christian, otherwise i might not have ever known."
Ah, that explains why you've presumed from word go that I'm a fundamentalist.
So, how about you giving us some reason to suspect you're a progressive?
When religion itself falls under fire, I have no reason to conclude that it's the "other side"'s faith being shot down. But maybe I'm just not sufficiently us/them in my thinking.
Regarding logic and reason as the basis for liberal thought and action, I suppose we love to assume that logic and reason favor our decisions--it's a flattering conceit. But morality, in my view, should be based on kindness and humanity and not necessarily what is logical or expedient. After all, what if logic tells us to act inhumanely in some instances? Would that behavior become correct by default?
"Question with authority, even the baldness of God"
i think you are being paranoid. unfortunately here, everyone has their "Right2voice."
Yes, in portions of that man-made document called The Bible. That was the God of another time, another culture. Time marches on, or hadn't you heard?
And I have no reason to think God is bald. Besides, couldn't He/She/It regrow His/Her/Its hair at will? Don't tell me that even the Almighty has no cure for hair loss!
No, I'm not being paranoid in suggesting that writers are supposed to qualify things. It's one of the elementary rules of writing. Sorry.
Religion has no basis in reason and logic. The Bible is no more reasonable than Jack and the Beanstalk ... even if Jack is a Liberal. But you have a right to your beliefs, no matter what others think of them. However, others also have the right to think your beliefs silly, or to call them out as inciting or masking all manner of ills ... which has been done here brilliantly and correctly.
No accounting for standards, I guess. Anyway, your OPINION is noted. And disagreed with.
I'm not in the mood to deal with your stock points against religion, but does it really, actually have to pointed out that logic and reason are potentially just as circular and self-serving as another kind of thinking? This is the case when people--such as yourself--wrap logic and reason around their pronouncements as if those two things constituted an infallible authority to cite, when in fact logic and reason are DISCIPLINES to be practiced carefully and precisely. I've observed that people who cite logic and reason as endorsements for their positions usually aren't employing either. You're practicing the fallacy known as appeal to authority (a.k.a., argument from). It's a brand of circular reasoning.
Responded immedialtely. ☑
Put bagger in his place. ☑
Stayed civil while putting out the trash. ☑
You got em. Well done sir.
Touché
However, I too believe that KO will return. His voice is powerful and filled with direct truths. There are still large sums of people who are hungry for his insights and authenticity. You can not keep a good man down.