If nothing else because of this line: "which, by the way, seems to be going well, thanks to Olbermann's money and his father's insurance"

That snide little comment makes you question Madden's intentions. Olbermann made the point over and over that HE had the money to pay for his father's care while others didn't and how that was completely unfair. BTW, what exactly are Madden and Salon doing to promote true health care reform? Other than petty sniping I mean.

He takes a little bit of truth from scientific sources and then turns it (usually not accurately) into a narrative that plays into people's love of a counterintuitive, self-fulfilling storyline (Yes, YOU TOO can become a great entrepreneur simply by going against prevailing wisdom). That he is successful at it I guess - like his "conquests - is the point for many but he is also selling BS from a scientific point of view. But hey what do his conquests care - he's got money adn status.

Isn't it interesting that probably the most openly gay member of Congress is also the toughest SOB the Democrats have. I'd want Barney on my side in a knife fight.

... are you going to interview me while I'm high and do a story about it?

Try reading other people's posts and using some rational thought before giving advice. You are under the impression that Greenwald "caused" Olbermann's presentations last night. IF you had bothered to actually read my post, I wrote "Olbermann tonight tore corporate America a new one (in a long piece he obviously had been working on for a long time - long before any of Greenwald's criticisms) and put Murdoch and O'Reilly at the top of worst persons. What happened to the "deal" Glenn?" It was obviously a long-formed piece based on his feelings about the health care debate the last week, not some impromptu bit to show greenwald something. Well, where IS the deal? Greenwald did not cause Olbermann's bit last night, any more than some "deal": caused him to stop mentioning O'Rielly. He said back on June 1st why he did. And to my point - neither Seltzer nor Greenwald have produced ANY evidence to the contrary. Until they do, they both owe Olbermann an apology. I also wrote that this was about the supposed "deal" and not Greenwald's other criticisms: "jumped the gun on this one and published speculation as fact. You should have done some more homework, like asking him for instance, about a deal that silenced his criticisms." And, quoting “I honor Mr. Greenwald's insight into the coverage of GE/NewsCorp talks, and his reporting on Richard's other jobs.” is beside the point. That post does not equal “yes you are right Glenn, I did agree to not comment on O’Rielly and Fox.” Are you so blind you cannot see the difference?

And taking unoriginal sophomoric shots like “mom have any kids that lived” doesn’t prove your point – it just proves you are an a-hole who uses emotion over rationality.

Seems Greenwald was putting all his eggs in a faulty reporting basket and came up with egg on his face.

To quote: "There is simply no doubt -- none -- that this happened. That is the reason that O'Reilly's name has not passed Olbermann's lips since June 1 -- because GE, petrified of further reporting by Fox of its corporate activities, has barred Olbermann from doing so."

Well there was doubt to those of us (unlike you) who watch Olbermann regularly and knew that he SAID ON THE AIR why he was going to stop talking about O'Reilly and it had to do with the abortion doctor getting shot. Greenwald may believe something entirely different, but has no proof otherwise and in this case exemplifies the type of sloppy "blogosphere journalism" that others take to task with the kind of criticisms that he often protests as unfair.

Olbermann tonight tore corporate America a new one (in a long piece he obviously had been working on for a long time - long before any of Greenwald's criticisms) and put Murdoch and O'Reilly at the top of worst persons. What happened to the "deal" Glenn? You were obviously wrong. I admire your unflinching criticisms of those of the elites of any persuasion who so richly deserve it - but Olbermann stood up when few would, at his own peril when he first started making his commentaries, and this criticism of him was unfounded and unfair. Now do you have the honesty to admit you jumped the gun on this one and published speculation as fact. You should have done some more homework, like asking him for instance, about a deal that silenced his criticisms. On that point you owe him an apology.

For those who think what comedians like Carrey and McCarthy are spouting as science is harmless: decreases in parents getting the MMR vaccine in the last few years in England had led to those diseases becoming endemic in certain areas. Those numbers will likely go up there and here - thanks to Jim, Jenny, and their enables like Oprah and Larry King.

I don't know which is worse - seeing a piece of shit like Horowitz polishing up his lie-based propaganda with a little bit of pretend sanity or Salon (a "progressive online publication") publish this trash. Great job again, Joan. When will the ever get rid of this idiot editor?