and the right to be respected for what one says.

This distinction is easy to understand when we witness an adult believer in Santa Claus discussing the virtue of the elves or the 10 Commandments of the Naughty/Nice List.

But we should also remember this when some Mariolatrous anti-intellectual grabs the microphone or posts his thoughts here at Salon.

Any person who belongs to and supports an organization that has perpetrated as much destruction on this planet as the Catholic Church should automatically forfeit any standing in a debate about morality.

Any person who holds and promotes a worldview that, except for its prevalence, would instantly earn him the diagnosis of delusional psychotic, should automatically forfeit any claim on respectability.

It's the year 2009, people, not 209. Flat-Earthers and Creationists deserve the same amount of respect that they have paid science by their steadfast ignorance of it, which means, NONE. Likewise, people like Father Vetter and poster Nathan Coker, who display their ignorance of biology and genetics like a badge of honor in discussions about homosexuality or masturbation, deserve nothing but pity (for their stupidity) and scorn (for their divisiveness and hatred of others).

Take the public option. Its trouble, Olbermann insisted, is its name. "Political speak," Olbermann said. "It is legalese. It is the ego of the informed strutting down the street and saying, 'Look at me, I talk smart.'" (Perhaps not the most cutting insult, coming in the middle of an hour-long monologue.)

Mike, those six words were admittedly not the best argument against the term “public option.” But Olbermann clearly did not intend them to be, even though your statements disingenuously suggest he did. His thesis, here, was that many people oppose healthcare reform because they think it might make their private affairs public, and because they’re afraid it will make their current healthcare coverage an option - which the gov’t might then take away. The latter point is undeniably true, and at least suggests that a better term could be used. Maybe “Medicare for all” isn’t the best alternative, but not because of your argument against it – it’s not literally true - which is frankly idiotic. Politics is a war of words, and perhaps if the “public option” had been promoted as “Medicare for all” from the beginning, there would be less irrational fear of it and more support for it, and hence stronger provisions in the legislation that actually resembled expanded Medicare a lot more than the 5 plans do currently.

The "Special Comment" took on all sorts of issues that didn't appear to have much to do with the healthcare debate. Olbermann engaged in a rhetorical battle with Winston Churchill, who had opposed national health insurance in Britain after World War II. He won the fight, for what it was worth, by digging up a Churchill quote from the 1930s where the former British prime minister insisted government had a right (in fact, Churchill’s word was “responsibility”) to provide for people's well-being. But what was the point? Churchill is dead...

Were you being obtuse on purpose, Mike? I mean, how much intellect or honesty does it take to admit that, while many important people are dead, their ideas and arguments live on, often in ways that are germane to our present debates?

The same went for Olbermann's references to 1840s Manchester, or his lengthy discussion of corporate-owned life insurance, the point of which seemed to be that corporations are greedy. (Breaking news).

So, Olbermann is damned no matter how he illustrates his points – either with subtle and arcane history, or with facts that are obvious and enjoy present-day consensus?

Mike, if you’re running for Anti-intellectual Douchebag of the Month, please let us know so we can vote for you!

...the point appeared to be to chastise everyone involved in it... Where Olbermann could have explained what the legislation would do -- and taken on the myths against it -- instead he spent his time making solemn pronouncements.

Which legislation would that be, Mike – the Senate Finance bill? All five bills? Until there’s a single bill passed by one or both houses, spending an hour (or five) explaining all the possible provisions in a future bill seems a theoretical exercise, and therefore a waste.

Olbermann's sudden sense of wonder at a broken system seemed misplaced somehow.

Where in hell did you get the impression that Olbermann’s outrage at our broken healthcare system was either sudden or full of wonder (surprise, or confusion)?

And for Olbermann to go on and on about his father's case -- which, by the way, seems to be going well, thanks to Olbermann's money and his father's insurance -- didn't seem to do much to help the cause of passing reform. There are plenty of people whose experiences with the healthcare system argue for reform, but the Olbermann family's mostly seemed to be a tale with a happy ending.

In my view, this is the stupidest argument I’ve seen in Salon in a very long time. In the first minute of his comment, Olbermann clearly stated that, while his experience with his father has illuminated much that is frustrating with our healthcare system, they – specifically because of his money and his father’s insurance coverage – “are among the utterly lucky ones... a fact that by itself is terrifying and infuriating.” How willfully deaf to those words does one have to be, Mike, to suggest that Olbermann was trying to paint his father’s story as among the worst, or that Olbermann doesn’t have a right to speak on this issue because of his fortunate circumstances and what appears (so far) to be a happy ending?

You're kidding, right?

Yes, but that you had to ask makes me even more frowny inside.