Another Go With KO

No sooner do I suggest that KO has "jumped the shark," and needs a break so that he can jump back - then he comes bringing it tonight in a special comment.

It resonates for me because I have stood with the leaders of my denomination, you know the same one that Pres. Bush and Vice-Pres. Cheney presumably claim, and opposed this war in Iraq from the beginning with this article from March, 2003. Over five years on, too many families in distress from multiple tours - and most folks don't even know who, what or why we're fighting. Their sacrifice of noble service, as well as the thousands who have given the highest measure of devotion must have meaning - but perpetuity is not it - unless, of course, feeding the military industrial complex, is.

Our men and women's nobility of service cannot be dependant on the agendas of politicians. It is noble and they are heroic because they promised to serve, to do so with honor, and to go where sent and do so without question.

Somebody's obviously talked to KO, or maybe he's now listening to himself. Whichever is the case, it needed to happen. His last couple of comments about the President, those about Sen. Clinton, his pronouncements about Katie Couric showed signs of something other than who he was tonight. They seemed desperate and forced.

Tonight he had something to say. No rants, not forced - blistering in truth, and I was listening.

A SPECIAL COMMENT: Time for KO to take a Standing Eight Count

I'm a fan of Keith Olbermann.

Have been for a long time. Watch "Countdown" regularly. Being among that first generation to embrace ESPN - "The Big Show" was a big deal.

There are more than a few of his "Special Comments" embedded on this site. As a wordsmith, he is unmatched.

Coupling his wit with libertarian passion has been refreshing in the dark night of our nation's soul these past years.

And it's time for him to catch a breath. As we are all want to do - he is becoming what he most despised.

Whatever Murrow-esque clarity that emerged through Comments centered on then Sec. Def. Rumseld to death of Habeas Corpus - it was the crystal clarity of truth cutting through the spun fog of war, confusion and fear.

But enough already.

The O'Reilly thing is petty. Why waste so much energy on a dope?

We get it, he doesn't think W should be in office.

The once refreshing "zeal" is now really starting to resemble the ravings of Howard Beale, from "Network," something that even he enjoyed in parody.

No, it not only is starting to look like it, it's really starting to sound like it.

His most recent comments on Hillary Clinton' invoking RFK's assassination (while inappropriately stated can hardly be considered conspiratorial) and then Katie Couric's assertion that sexism had a role in Hillary's campaign demise (which he dismissed way too quickly in defense of a fellow reporter because of the one who levied it) is a reach that does not serve him well.

Go to Countdown's website and see for yourself.

And then it hit me.

I wonder if he now thinks he has to come up with a rant to be relevant. I know what it's like when you feel like you have to come up with something to say.

It comes off empty, forced--whatever truth exposed is now muted by a healthy dose of ego that's fully in the way.

So KO, I love ya buddy - but take a step back, gain some perspective - especially with an election on the horizon.

You're better than what you've been spewing.

Good night, and good luck.

KO's Special Comment - July 3, 2007

I'm just linking, not posting the whole video - hey I'm on holiday, what you want from me?

If you didn't see Keith Olbermann Tuesday, here it is, eloquent, biting, strangely appropriate, fundamentally constitutionally American.

Hit the link and wait out the commerical - Special Comment

KO - Special Comment on Iraq Funding Resolution

Haven't posted anything from KO in awhile - but this one can't be ignored.


Give it a look and the let debate begin -

Leftovers and a Few Fresh Servings

Some scattered thoughts left over from '06, and comments on what has been an extraordinary first week in '07 -

• + How was my holiday? What holiday? With Kristy working full time, we only had a couple of days off, so I worked more during a time I usually take apart. Not that I'm complaining, mind you - the season just had a very different rhythm to it than my past Christmas seasons. I even preached on what is traditionally an "associate" Sunday. And it was really o.k.
  
• + Last week, on like the 4th day of Christmas, I'm picking up my middle child from his cousins' house in Collierville, where he basically lived for the whole his holiday break. He's 11, and the spittin' image of my brother, in more ways than I can count, and he says to me, "Dad, do you know what I want for Easter?" He didn't get to tell me - I think it was that "don't go there" stare I gave him back. And then it occurred to me - our children have always received gifts, and often in abundance, but we have not instilled in them the desire to give them. Note for '07, that's something I've got to work on.
• + When I was growing up, my Dad would never ask for anything during holiday time. And even now as an adult, I find he's still among the hardest of people to buy for. "Oh, I don't need anything, just your company." Now, when I was little, I used to think he's nuts because I had the Sears Wishbook dog-eared, cross-referenced, and strategically displayed on the table for any eyes desiring to know what their loving son wanted for Christmas. But I get it now. I've come to realize that the gift of time together, or even the quite of an afternoon is not a bad gift. Often it is a treasure in itself.
• + I've been asked if my opposition to the death penalty applies to Saddam Hussein. Yes - because you can kill someone, doesn't mean you should, even if the guy is bad, maybe especially if he is.
  
• + In the world of the bizarre - on the same day last week, the cable news network I watch covered three stories simultaneously - the execution of Saddam, the death of the 38th President of the United States, and the death of the Godfather of Soul. This may well be a sign of the apocalypse.
• + Or, maybe this is - our President, it appears, is going to send up thousands of more troops to Iraq against the counsel of his Generals, the Iraq Study Group, and a disgruntled American populous - who now see this FUBAR'd debacle for what it is. Oh, yes, I've got KO on this one - stand back and hold on to something -
  

• + As of yesterday, the second in line of succession to the Presidency is a woman. Who'd a thunk it?
• + My list of resolutions for '07 looks strangely familiar. Why is that? Oh, that's right, they're the one's for '06, '05, '04 . . . what's that quote about insanity? It's doing the same thing the same way and expecting a different result. Maybe time for something different - please.
  

KO Special Comment - "The Lessons of Vietnam"

For folks without cable.

Civics class is back in session.

KO's Special Comment - "Who Owes the Apology?"

In the wake of diversionary tactics that often cloud what is, in the end, essential in matters of determining the future of the republic,

the monopoly of power and it's perpetuation at any cost,

and finally, the debasement of all that is noble in democracy,

I offer this embed video of Keith Olbermann's Special Comment last night. It comes via YouTube.com and is offered in two parts.

KO's Special Comment - "The Death of Habeas Corpus"

There was a time not too long ago, when I was amazed that this guy could keep his job at NBC. Given the recent law signed, I'm no longer worried about his job - I'm worried about him.

And as one who loves America's promise, I'm left to wonder - How much more is it going to take, people? How much more?

KO's Special Comment on 9/11 - "This Hole in the Ground"

KO again.

Not to be missed.

You don't have to like him - I find his courage remarkable, and his skill to communicate something to admire and worthy of emulation.

My previous posts on KO reveal my appreciation for his skill. But on this day, it is his keen, clear insight that is so poignant.

As a linguist, I think he's masterful. I'm left wondering whether to shout "Amen, brother," or "O my God, I can't believe he said that," or, to hearken back to my Western Kentucky roots, "Holy Shit!"

KO - One More Time

I'm not going to make a habit of this, but Keith Olbermann is simply on a roll right now. And he brings into high relief the very issue that faces us. On one hand, you have fear, both that which is legitimate and engineered, at an "enemy" that would do us harm.

There is no question about the existence of the enemy.

On the other, you have the response to the fear - both the legitimate and engineered. And herein lies the rub. When such fear is manipulated for political advantage and not for the good of the whole, I dare say it lies darn close to treason.

So, by all means, let's forsake what defines us and become what we most despise, shall we? That's the tack of the current administration. Who needs the enemy to take our quality of life and freedom away when we can do that to ourselves?

Murrow Among Us, Thank God!

Below is a stream of Keith Olbermann's comment on the recent speech given by the Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, that those who would dare offer dissenting voices in the face of government decisions, particularly those of a military variety - are either "intellectually or morally confused." And, that they are not unlike those who saw no real threat from Hitler in the 1930's, with history having labelled them "appeasers."

This is one of those rare moments when a commentator does what a commentator, living in a country where freedom of the press and freedom of speech rate number one on The Bill of Rights, should do.

This is not about political party - it really isn't.

It's about what power, unchecked, unchallenged, becomes -always.

Among the absolutes of the human condition, this is one.

There is also a theology to dissent. It is not meant to injure. That's way too easy. Rather, it is meant to confront power, where power is abused to separate God's children one from another.

Dissent was the role of the prophet - the role of Jesus - the role of the first Christians - a role played well by Christians until Constantine made Christianity the religion of the state, and we haven't been the same since.

It is the role of any who lovingly hold the other accountable.

It's Methodist, for God's sake. Or, at least it was.

It's at least Wesleyan.

I don't know KO's religious leanings, and I don't care.

But this translates well into the citizenships I hold.

Too often it becomes cliche', but I believe it to be especially true now.

We live in perilous times.

In ways that have never before been a part of my vocabulary apart from Biblical criticism, I understand anew the role and warnings of apocalyptic literature.

These are the days when our voices must be heard despite the efforts to silence or diminish them.

It matters not whether you are for or against the war or this administration.

I cannot fathom any American,

or any Christian for that matter,

especially Methodist Christians, who share that name with the Commander in Chief,

who can sit idly by and think that what's happening right now, or what has happened since 2001 is right, honest, moral or faithful.








The man who sees absolutes, where all other men see nuances and shades of meaning, is either a prophet, or a quack.

Donald H. Rumsfeld is not a prophet.

Mr. Rumsfeld’s remarkable speech to the American Legion yesterday demands the deep analysis—and the sober contemplation—of every American.

For it did not merely serve to impugn the morality or intelligence -- indeed, the loyalty -- of the majority of Americans who oppose the transient occupants of the highest offices in the land. Worse, still, it credits those same transient occupants -- our employees -- with a total omniscience; a total omniscience which neither common sense, nor this administration’s track record at home or abroad, suggests they deserve.

Dissent and disagreement with government is the life’s blood of human freedom; and not merely because it is the first roadblock against the kind of tyranny the men Mr. Rumsfeld likes to think of as “his” troops still fight, this very evening, in Iraq.

It is also essential. Because just every once in awhile it is right and the power to which it speaks, is wrong.

In a small irony, however, Mr. Rumsfeld’s speechwriter was adroit in invoking the memory of the appeasement of the Nazis. For in their time, there was another government faced with true peril—with a growing evil—powerful and remorseless.

That government, like Mr. Rumsfeld’s, had a monopoly on all the facts. It, too, had the “secret information.” It alone had the true picture of the threat. It too dismissed and insulted its critics in terms like Mr. Rumsfeld’s -- questioning their intellect and their morality.

That government was England’s, in the 1930’s.It knew Hitler posed no true threat to Europe, let alone England.

It knew Germany was not re-arming, in violation of all treaties and accords.

It knew that the hard evidence it received, which contradicted its own policies, its own conclusions — its own omniscience -- needed to be dismissed.

The English government of Neville Chamberlain already knew the truth.

Most relevant of all — it “knew” that its staunchest critics needed to be marginalized and isolated. In fact, it portrayed the foremost of them as a blood-thirsty war-monger who was, if not truly senile, at best morally or intellectually confused.

That critic’s name was Winston Churchill.

Sadly, we have no Winston Churchills evident among us this evening. We have only Donald Rumsfelds, demonizing disagreement, the way Neville Chamberlain demonized Winston Churchill.

History — and 163 million pounds of Luftwaffe bombs over England — have taught us that all Mr. Chamberlain had was his certainty — and his own confusion. A confusion that suggested that the office can not only make the man, but that the office can also make the facts.

Thus, did Mr. Rumsfeld make an apt historical analogy.

Excepting the fact, that he has the battery plugged in backwards.

His government, absolute -- and exclusive -- in its knowledge, is not the modern version of the one which stood up to the Nazis.

It is the modern version of the government of Neville Chamberlain.

But back to today’s Omniscient ones. That, about which Mr. Rumsfeld is confused is simply this: This is a Democracy. Still. Sometimes just barely.

And, as such, all voices count -- not just his.

Had he or his president perhaps proven any of their prior claims of omniscience — about Osama Bin Laden’s plans five years ago, about Saddam Hussein’s weapons four years ago, about Hurricane Katrina’s impact one year ago — we all might be able to swallow hard, and accept their “omniscience” as a bearable, even useful recipe, of fact, plus ego.

>But, to date, this government has proved little besides its own arrogance, and its own hubris.

Mr. Rumsfeld is also personally confused, morally or intellectually, about his own standing in this matter. From Iraq to Katrina, to the entire “Fog of Fear” which continues to envelop this nation, he, Mr. Bush, Mr. Cheney, and their cronies have — inadvertently or intentionally — profited and benefited, both personally, and politically.

And yet he can stand up, in public, and question the morality and the intellect of those of us who dare ask just for the receipt for the Emporer’s New Clothes?

In what country was Mr. Rumsfeld raised? As a child, of whose heroism did he read? On what side of the battle for freedom did he dream one day to fight? With what country has he confused the United States of America?

The confusion we -- as its citizens— must now address, is stark and forbidding.

But variations of it have faced our forefathers, when men like Nixon and McCarthy and Curtis LeMay have darkened our skies and obscured our flag. Note -- with hope in your heart — that those earlier Americans always found their way to the light, and we can, too.

The confusion is about whether this Secretary of Defense, and this administration, are in fact now accomplishing what they claim the terrorists seek: The destruction of our freedoms, the very ones for which the same veterans Mr. Rumsfeld addressed yesterday in Salt Lake City, so valiantly fought.And about Mr. Rumsfeld’s other main assertion, that this country faces a “new type of fascism.”

As he was correct to remind us how a government that knew everything could get everything wrong, so too was he right when he said that -- though probably not in the way he thought he meant it.

This country faces a new type of fascism - indeed.

Although I presumptuously use his sign-off each night, in feeble tribute, I have utterly no claim to the words of the exemplary journalist Edward R. Murrow.

But never in the trial of a thousand years of writing could I come close to matching how he phrased a warning to an earlier generation of us, at a time when other politicians thought they (and they alone) knew everything, and branded those who disagreed: “confused” or “immoral.” Thus, forgive me, for reading Murrow, in full:

“We must not confuse dissent with disloyalty,” he said, in 1954. “We must remember always that accusation is not proof, and that conviction depends upon evidence and due process of law.

“We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven by fear into an age of unreason, if we dig deep in our history and our doctrine, and remember that we are not descended from fearful men, not from men who feared to write, to speak, to associate, and to defend causes that were for the moment unpopular.”

And so good night, and good luck.