She must resign.

Hear, Hear!

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Wednesday, October 26th, 2011 6:20pm PDT - promote requested by Boise_Lib.

Funny how this is so much more effective than the over blown theatrics of his "worst person" segments.
Olbermann really wants to be Murrow's spiritual successor, and just occasionally, he could be.

Well done, sir.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Funny how this is so much more effective than the over blown theatrics of his "worst person" segments.
Olbermann really wants to be Murrow's spiritual successor, and just occasionally, he could be.
Well done, sir.


"Worst person" is usually semi tongue-in-cheek, and meant to be used for situations where the person has merely said something unconscionable.

Special Comments are for when people have committed some sort of real injustice in both word and deed.

For the former he tends to be humorous and sometimes uses salty language. For the latter he keeps it serious and clean, but really unleashes the righteous fury.

>> ^NetRunner:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Funny how this is so much more effective than the over blown theatrics of his "worst person" segments.
Olbermann really wants to be Murrow's spiritual successor, and just occasionally, he could be.
Well done, sir.

"Worst person" is usually semi tongue-in-cheek, and meant to be used for situations where the person has merely said something unconscionable.
Special Comments are for when people have committed some sort of real injustice in both word and deed.
For the former he tends to be humorous and sometimes uses salty language. For the latter he keeps it serious and clean, but really unleashes the righteous fury.


fair point.

"Provocative attention grabbing sentence. Patronizing set up. Shame on you. Hyperbole. Shame on you. False analogy. Outrage. Ad hominem! False Dilemma!"

Fuck this. As a resident of Oakland, I deplore seeing more violence in a city already plagued by violence. I would much rather see the city act in support its citizen's right to speak out against injustice. However, I'm fed up with seeing Olbermann and the clowns he left at MSNBC abuse such childish tactics. I refuse to pat someone on the back simply because they've become a yelling head for our side. Is the intended implication that we're not smart enough to make our own judgements in reaction to this footage?

The way I see it, Olbermann is left with only one false dichotomy: learn how to practice journalism and contribute to the meaningful debate that our country needs or resign.

>> ^Sayja:

"Provocative attention grabbing sentence. Patronizing set up. Shame on you. Hyperbole. Shame on you. False analogy. Outrage. Ad hominem! False Dilemma!"
Fuck this. As a resident of Oakland, I deplore seeing more violence in a city already plagued by violence. I would much rather see the city act in support its citizen's right to speak out against injustice. However, I'm fed up with seeing Olbermann and the clowns he left at MSNBC abuse such childish tactics. I refuse to pat someone on the back simply because they've become a yelling head for our side. Is the intended implication that we're not smart enough to make our own judgements in reaction to this footage?
The way I see it, Olbermann is left with only one false dichotomy: learn how to practice journalism and contribute to the meaningful debate that our country needs or resign.


Yeah?

A false dichotomy? I don't see where that equates to riot gear cops shooting people with rubber bullets and lobbing shock grenades into the crowd.

I think you're on the wrong side here, boy.

The false dichotomy is in Olbermann's call for Jean Quan to resign. It has nothing to do with the tactics that OPD employed.
You misunderstand me if you think I'm in support of Quan and the Police's actions. I simply think that overblown rhetoric doesn't make for good journalism. The debate would better be served by reason and reporting than by appeals to emotion. I don't need Keith Olbermann to tell me how I'm supposed to feel about violence. Perhaps it's a radical thought, but I trust people to be able to make up their own minds.
>> ^rougy:

>> ^Sayja:
"Provocative attention grabbing sentence. Patronizing set up. Shame on you. Hyperbole. Shame on you. False analogy. Outrage. Ad hominem! False Dilemma!"
Fuck this. As a resident of Oakland, I deplore seeing more violence in a city already plagued by violence. I would much rather see the city act in support its citizen's right to speak out against injustice. However, I'm fed up with seeing Olbermann and the clowns he left at MSNBC abuse such childish tactics. I refuse to pat someone on the back simply because they've become a yelling head for our side. Is the intended implication that we're not smart enough to make our own judgements in reaction to this footage?
The way I see it, Olbermann is left with only one false dichotomy: learn how to practice journalism and contribute to the meaningful debate that our country needs or resign.

Yeah?
A false dichotomy? I don't see where that equates to riot gear cops shooting people with rubber bullets and lobbing shock grenades into the crowd.
I think you're on the wrong side here, boy.

I hate this. This whole mess of an infrastructure we have is infested with corruption.

Do you know WHY the police are doing this? Because they've got a boss, and their boss came to them and said "GET THIS SORTED OUT WHATEVER IT TAKES OR YOU'RE HISTORY!"

The police on the ground get good at finding sneaky ways of getting things sorted, and they do it because they were told to by their boss or be fired or whatever. That guy was told the same by their boss because he's in charge of the area and he needs better crime statistics. Where does it end? What is the source of this self torture of our own devising? Is it a politician who hears us complain about crime so tries to get better crime statistics to quote to the cameras next time?

Have we put ourselves in this situation? So many things work like this. Have we put ourselves in trouble by taking a million bad decisions, or accepting a million injustices, one at a time, each one insignificant, but eventually adding up to something very bad?

>> ^dannym3141:

Have we put ourselves in this situation? So many things work like this. Have we put ourselves in trouble by taking a million bad decisions, or accepting a million injustices, one at a time, each one insignificant, but eventually adding up to something very bad?


I think you really hit the nail on the head there -- that's the real underlying cause of so many problems we face right now. There's so much emphasis on "individual responsibility" and self-interest that people have totally lost sight of the idea that they should be thinking about how their decisions impact society at large.

The end result is that all of that self-centered disregard for other people's problems at the micro level just piles up until our entire society has become organized in ways that seem oppressive and abusive to most of us. That's not because we've been taken over by some cabal of evil geniuses (as so many seem to think), it's because we've walled ourselves in with our own mutual disregard for each other.