I'm a fan of smart-asses. Yes, we are in agreement. If only the big L libertarians could stop seeing the entire world as a nail.

saith fair Mona. I have to admit, you are the only one I've ever read or heard that doesn't seem like a total "toon." I've been reading your posts for a long time now and you seem somewhat like a good egg.

I've known so many libertarians in my life and I will admit, they did seem pretty cartoonlike in their arguments.

I also have to say that Mona, you are the ONLY libertarian I've ever heard say the market isn't a magic bullet. And, preferring not to be a name dropper, I'll just say my experience of libertarians is fairly extensive.

"IMHO, drug use wouldn’t be a public health issue if it were legal in a licensed parlor, where the person who would be using the drug is placed alone in a padded room."

They are called bars. The bar stools are usually padded. I've even been in one bar that had seat belts on the bar stools. Crash helmets are not a bad idea over at the pool table. The pool cues and all... I'm sure it would be much worse if people were smoking pot, hash and opium. Seriously... not!

Brit Hume Is Fair on Special Report.

I think Brit Hume is fair. Brit rarely goes on these attacks on his show Special Report.

Have you ever watched his Grapevine segment on his show. I challenged you to watch it for just one week and tell me you don't get a sense of Mr Hume's bias.

That said one of the things about KO's show that I wished he would do is bring on people who might be known as representatives on "the other side".

Categories which are eternal, vs. categories which flex with the rhythms of the body politic. I keep telling you that Plato's behind all this. No liberal he....

_zack:

Hume, who openly admits and expresses his conservative views, insists that he should be judged “upon his performance.” Yet, that is exactly what “conservatives” are trying to deny Keith Olbermann. They object to his very existence; his performance is irrelevant.

What conservatives want in the debates, and the criteria they want applied to the questioners, is the very same standard that Bradley Schlozman applied in the Bush Justice Department: “Is he one of us?”

That is their goal. And there is absolutely nothing “fair” about that at all.

The rightwing Media Resource Center delights in publishing examples of "liberal bias" that consist of things said off-air, precisely because they are much more likely to frankly opinionated, and thus rile up their base. The conclusion is obvious: It's the very existence of liberals that's horrifying. And if we can't line them all up and shoot them now, at least we can drive them off the airwaves! Correcting on-air factual mis-statements, ala Media Matters for America, is the furthest thing from their minds.

Back in the Vietnam (and early drug) War days, my sister had a dream in which we were arrested along with all our friends. There were two types of charges brought against us: Presence, which was a misdemeanor. And Existence, which was a felony. I've always rememberd that dream about ontological crimes. And this post reminds me of it again. Yes, indeedy. Conservatives charge Olberman with Existence. And it is, indeed, a felony in their eyes.

Did you catch this, Paul?

Collapse of center makes for a different political animal

http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/opinion/bal-op.schaller02may02,0,7506945.column

By number #1, we damn the Soviet Reds - no matter how high their ideals were in some theoretical sense.

In practice the son of Marx is Engels, and the Son of Engels is Stalin.

We can say, Enough! with your abstractions - in practice Soviet theology is still-born.

Now, we ask the same of the Libertarians.

If you voted for Bush, then why? If you voted for him again, then "Damn You!" It is no longer a fair mistake.

Take responsibility for your theology in practice. Friedman is as stained by Pinochet as Marx was by Lenin. "Out out damn spot!"

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me. What kind of fools are the Libertarians? And why?

You shall judge them by their fruits. I say, "and their brothers' fruits!"

The right wing wants to take KO down at any cost. It is absolutely clear that they want to discredit him and force NBC to come “clean” of its “left-wing” liberal commentators. Bill O’Reily regularly trashes NBC with this only one indirect target: KO must go if NBC wants to prove that it is not a liberal media! Glenn is absolutely right in pointing out that what KO does is just traditional journalism. It mostly mild criticism (except some commentaries) compared to many commentators in any civilized western democracies. If you have any doubt, read some editors from UK describing Tony Blair as Bush’s mistress regularly. The press here is a shame and AP is just a reflection of the lowest possible standards accepted these days everywhere. It is a shame that no one in the MSM ranks were critical of republican’s fear mongering in the fear of being branded liberal. How ironic and it is working! Matthews is also a beltway insider; he sees glamour and showcasing of presidential power when Dubya trashes public opinion, or somehow lands on an aircraft career to portray this sick image of a monarchy. In MSNBC, Pat Buchanan shows up in Scarborough to espouse rants such as President has conviction and democrats are week! If they manage to get rid of KO, they will have hardly anyone speaking truth to the power in the ranks of NBC-MSNBC. It will not be bad for me personally; I can get rid of the cable and just connect internet to my TV.

Mona:

What so many of you remind me of are the wingnuts

Now, now, no complaints. Isn't this world, where every person has to fend for him or herself against anything that may roll down the pike, fun? Isn't this free exchange of ideas, barely restrained by tacit notions of civility, informative?

As for Glenn's post: brilliant, once again. I'll be interested to see how Kurtz responds to you (if he does).