Alarming News: I like Morgan Freeberg. A lot.
American Digest: And I like this from "The Blog That Nobody Reads", because it is -- mostly -- about me. What can I say? I'm on an ego trip today. It won't last.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: We were following a trackback and thinking "hmmm... this is a bloody excellent post!", and then we realized that it was just part III of, well, three...Damn. I wish I'd written those.
Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler: ...I just remembered that I found a new blog a short while ago, House of Eratosthenes, that I really like. I like his common sense approach and his curiosity when it comes to why people believe what they believe rather than just what they believe.
Brutally Honest: Morgan Freeberg is brilliant.
Dr. Melissa Clouthier: Morgan Freeberg at House of Eratosthenes (pftthats a mouthful) honors big boned women in skimpy clothing. The picture there is priceless--keep scrolling down.
Exile in Portales: Via Gerard: Morgan Freeberg, a guy with a lot to say. And he speaks The Truth...and it's fascinating stuff. Worth a read, or three. Or six.
Just Muttering: Two nice pieces at House of Eratosthenes, one about a perhaps unintended effect of the Enron mess, and one on the Gore-y environ-movie.
Mein Blogovault: Make "the Blog that No One Reads" one of your daily reads.
The Virginian: I know this post will offend some people, but the author makes some good points.
Poetic Justice: Cletus! Ah gots a laiv one fer yew...
I get to link straight to the FARK thread on this one since it was green-lit, meaning you don’t need to be a member of TOTALFARK in order to see it. Just click on the YouTube logo at the top and away you go.
I think some of the comments from the Olby apologists are pretty important here.
The apology is for having pointed out what a crazy whack-a-doodle Rudy Giuliani seems to be, when you pretend that Giuliani said something that Giuliani did not, in fact, actually say. Actually, it’s somewhat less sincere than that. Giuliani said something, the Associated Press somehow began circulating a mythology that Giuliani said something else, the mythology reached Olby, Olby helped promote the mythology, AP issued a retraction, Olby followed suit.
To Olbermann’s credit, his apology clip contains an excerpt of Giuliani’s comments. From that, you are eqiupped with all the tools necessary to make up your own mind…an unusual move for Olby, but one can see how circumstances might persuade him to turn over a new leaf and step out of that cloistered citadel of “everybody tells everybody else what to think all the time.” What is not so clear, however, is how Giuliani’s remarks were mangled in the first place.
Nor am I clear on the thinking of the Keith-Oh fan base. To be sure, Olbermann’s doing a few things here that he doesn’t necessarily have to do, but each and every one of those things is reactive in nature. But more important than that, he got into this trouble by passing the second milestone on the way to insanity; in other words, he navigated the First Traid of the Nine Pillars of Persuasion out of sequence. And in that sense, his apology is just as out-of-step as the blunder that originally made the apology necessary.
To bottom-line it, he heard something, he believed it uncritically, he re-broadcast it, he learned about a retraction from the original source and then he re-broadcast that. And for the second re-broadcasting, his fan base is telling everyone within earshot that we’re all supposed to hold Olby in high esteem for his vaunted personal integrity.
This strikes me as trying to have things both ways. The apology is a reflection of your personal integrity, while the original screw-up is not? I dunno. When I look at the facts and decide what they mean for myself, it seems Olbermann is just some guy who reads or watches products from the Associated Press, believes every word of it without checking it out, does his bit to re-broadcast it to whatever extent he can, and takes bows for the AP’s retractions while disclaiming any involvement or responsibility when the AP fumbles.
I mean, an eight dollar pair of amplified speakers can do that.
Except stereo speakers don’t make careers out of being angry. At least now when I see Keith Olbermann being angry about something, I’ll know there’s a good chance he hasn’t the slightest idea whether or not his anger is based on anything real.
I get angry about things too. Pig-bitin’ mad, sometimes. I can make Olby look like Mahatma Ghandi, depending on what’s under discussion. But I can get only so mad, up to a certain level, beyond which I have to check things out and find out what’s going on. If I get angrier than that, then I’ve got to do this…or make a priority out of it. It’s tough on the ol’ ticker you know, I’ve only got so many occasions to get angry before it’s time to cash things in. I’d like my anger, therefore, to be based on something real. So anger compels me to check things out. That’s what normal people do.
So what use would I have for a guy like Olby, who shouts first and checks things out second?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
It’s tough on the ol’ ticker you know, I’ve only got so many occasions to get angry before it’s time to cash things in.
It’s too, too bad that frickin’ Olbermann isn’t built the same way. Coz if he were I have the feeling we’d be seeing a lot less of him. Or you’d be seeing a lot less of him…coz the only time I see him is when the odd (pun intended) UTube clip pops up every now and then. I dislike him more than that despicable H. Cullen. At least she has good intentions.
- Buck | 11/03/2007 @ 12:34Well, I do think he’s more informed on the issues in general than, say, Rosie O’Dumbell.
- mkfreeberg | 11/03/2007 @ 13:39Well, I do think he’s more informed on the issues in general than, say, Rosie O’Dumbell.
Morgan!! I can’t believe you said that! You might as well have said “He’s more informed than your average mackerel.” Same diff, eh?
- Buck | 11/04/2007 @ 13:22[…] I’ve defended Rudy Giuliani from slander here and here, but I’ve set him aside as a non-viable candidate, one rendered unacceptable until such time as something enormously huge changes. JohnJ, writing in an offline, wanted to know why. Without quoting from the actual exchange, I thought my reply was worth a broadcast. It includes some points about illegal immigration that are not, to the extent I can see, discussed very much anywhere — and really should be. Well, I’m plum-pleased to see you’re sticking around and are going to be visible. You’re a sharp guy and have some well-thought out positions on things, although of course you and I don’t agree on everything. Hey, life would be boring if everybody did. […]
- House of Eratosthenes | 12/04/2007 @ 03:10