Incorrect Assertions:
1: van Heerden "predicted that after Katrina fire ants would devour the people left behind in New Orleans."
The link you provide completely and incorrectly interpreted his 'prediction.'
van Heerden said ""Imagine you're the poor person who decides not to evacuate: Your house will disintegrate around you. The best you'll be able to do is hang on to a light pole, and while you're hanging on, the fire ants from all the mounds -- of which there is two per yard on average -- will clamber up that same pole. And eventually, the fire ants will win."
That's a far cry from 'devour'. Houses did literally 'disintegrate', especially for the 'poor'. So, let's use a little imagination: if you are hanging on a pole and fire ants (seeking high, drier ground) come up it, they will bite you. How long are you going to hang on? Not very long (e.g. the ants will win). Not 'eat', not 'devour' so it is incorrect to exaggerate. BTW, there ARE a lot of fire ants in LA.
2: van Heerden predicted " And then the standing waters would not just be toxic"
Wrong again. van Heerden said "we have the potential for release of benzene, hydrochloric acid, chlorine and so on" from chemical plants. I believe that is part of exactly what is happening.
3: "they would in fact burst into flames"
van Heerden pointed out that gas and diesel tanks will float in high water, "shear their couplings, and we'll have the release of these rather volatile compounds." The rainbow swirly effects in the waters of NOLA are not melted skittles.
Because gasoline floats on water, van Heerden says "we could end up with some pretty severe and large -- area-wise -- fires." I seem to recall several fires broke out in NOLA. I also recall firefighters unable to use the flood waters because of oil and gas in the water!
4: "destroying the entire city!" is certainly not the same as "large -- area-wise fires"
5: "KO didn't broach any of these failed forecasts." because they were not incorrect and often were predicated with 'could'.
Note: Olby didn't bother to mention how in 2002, van Heerden predicted damn near exactly what happened in New Orleans.
6: "A typically snide report from David Gregory asserted that President Bush was now attempting to pursue "simple competence"." There was nothing snide about it, that was just your perception. DG said that Bush was on tour to show "compassion, and basic competence" to the American people.
7: "Gold Star Mother Cindy Sheehan"
I assume you are aware that the term refers to a mother who has lost a son in combat. Would you have preferred "Sheehan, who lost her son in an illegal, unjust, immoral war in Iraq"? [adjectives provided by the Catholic Church]
Note: for a supposed liberal, Olby prefaced this segment with a wondering "who let her back on the map" comment that liberals probably found snarky.
8: "quickly sliding over the dispositive point that the Park Police are not under Presidential command."
Olby and Fineman mentioned three times that the Prez has no authority over the D.C/park police. That is hardly "quickly sliding over." Their query was not why Bush permitted the police to arrest but that the "message did not get across" from Bush to leave her alone.
Note: Interesting, though incorrect, use of the word 'dispositive'
9:: "The worst person in the world: Congressman Richard Pambo, who wants to sell naming rights to national parks to create additional revenues. "
While, IMHO, that is enough to make him the WPW, the topper was that he wants to give 16 national parks over to developers. Exactly what Teddy Roosevelt would've been against and what is against the role of the NPS.
Note: Olby specifically pointed out that TR, who began the NPS, was a Republican.
10: "Of course, he's a Republican." Is this a tacit admission that the stupidest ideas/things come out of Republican mouths. Do you have a better WPW?
11: "One of the runners-up was iraqpartnership.org. Don't ask why; something about we've spent enough money on iraq so individuals shouldn't donate anything further." No, not at all. About how we have already spent a ton of money on Iraq and that they have raised the grand total of $600.
Note: globalgiving, the parent to iraqpartnership is highly lauded by liberals which belies your assertion that Olby never targets liberals.

I note from the header that this site is "reality-based news for the belligerently uninformed." However, you have not provided any news, but incorrect assertions. Likewise, you imply that Olbermann watchers are uninformed.
What, in your opinion, did Olby fail to inform his viewers about.
After all, he mentioned:
the "lack of deaths" to Rita due to evacuation (his conservative side showing?)
"extra crude oil[being released from SR] will not bring down [gas] prices" due to lack of, and damage to refineries.
Lyndie England was convicted in the Abu Ghraib scandal.
Failed Fema director Mike 'Brownie' Brown was returning to help FEMA and that he gets four weeks of pay even after he resigned.
That 3 U.S soldiers died in Iraq, bringing the total to 40 since Katrina.
That a school was attacked in Iraq, resulting in the death of 7 teachers.

Nice job, belligerentlyuninformed. Way to nail down the falseness of this blog. Be warned though, Johnny Dollar and Krazy for Keith are gonna be all over you know. I've tried it before and I still bear the scars. ;) They must lead a sad life if they believe that Cox, who based on his writing, is a school-skipping five-year-old playing on his mommy and daddy's computer, should be given the same journalistic integrity as Walter Kronkite.

One thing you forgot to mention though, was that in WPITW, that KO listed some people suing a town because it had three crosses in its logo, yet the town means "The Crosses" in Spanish. If Keith was really the diehard liberal Coxxy paints him to be, wouldn't be taking the side of those people?

Sounds to me like Cox watches O'Reilly. He has a selective memory and doesn't seem to watch the show enough to really understand the points Keith is making.

Again, nice job. Now head for the bomb shelter. I hear JD and KFK heading over the mountain side in their Yugos! ;)

What "falseness" are you referring to? Did we falsify anything KO said? Did we report a phony or doctored quote? If so, tell us and we'll retract it (unlike Olby who doesn't believe in correcting his lies).

As for the "incorrect assertions":

1,2,3,4. I linked to the CJR article in question. If your saying the Columbia Journalism Review is telling lies, then your quarrel is with them. Since when did they become a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy?

5. His forecasts WEREN'T wrong? Fire ants DID eat people? The toxic waters DID catch fire?

6. Of course it's my perception that it's snide. That's Gregory's stock-in-trade. For an impartial reporter to state that the person he is covering is struggling to attain "simple competence" is both an outrageous injection of personal opinion, and a casebook example of being "snide".

7. I am fully aware of what the term "Gold Star Mother" means. I am also fully aware of how Olby delights in using it to describe Cindy Sheehan. HOw often has he done so to describe mothers on the other side of the argument (assuming he has ever even acknowledged their existence)?

8. The "dispositive point" WAS quickly slided over, because if either of them paid any attention to it for more than a nanosecond, it would have been clear that the rest of their question (why did Bush permit her to be arrested) was nonsensical, pointless, and only raised to promote the purposes of the Hour of Spin. It would be analogous to asking why did Bush permit the hurricane to make landfall. Um, he doesn't control hurricanes.

9, 10, 11: The point is that, according to Olby, ONLY Republicans ever make worst person in the world, except when he bestows that distinction on someone from Fox News (that other news channel, the one that actually has viewers). If he wanted to call this segment The Most Irritating to Left-Wing Bloggers Person in the World then at least he would be honest. The blatant hack partisanship that this segment displays day after day (not to mention the egocentric conceit that its very concept embodies) is just a portion of the proof that Countdown is the most biased "news" program on American television.

Mr. Informed,

Many thanks for your lucid response. Few here argue with your clarity and lack of venom.

I don't know how long you've read this site. Even cursory exposure demonstrates that many a wild goose chase originates here. Bob Cox seems to be running it by proxy. A bunch of righties once alternated days to watch and editorialize alleged nefarious acts of KO on this site. Cox once posted here daily --and used to label posts with names like "lefy loon," "DUer," "clear thinker" (for righties) and the like but hasn't since this site crawled back from the curb recently after many months of inactivity (which went unexplained).

Anyway, nice to hear from you. This place is like a train wreck. You know not to look, but do.

JD,

As blustery as Katrina:

"HOw often has he done so to describe mothers on the other side of the argument (assuming he has ever even acknowledged their existence)?"

----> I don't know. You tell us. You're the one suppoisedly monitoring KO.

"...because if either of them paid any attention to it for more than a nanosecond, it would have been clear that the rest of their question (why did Bush permit her to be arrested) was nonsensical, pointless, and only raised to promote the purposes of the Hour of Spin."

----> This is conjecture...hypothetical, baseless and unprovable.

"It would be analogous to asking why did Bush permit the hurricane to make landfall. Um, he doesn't control hurricanes."

----> Of course Bush doesn't control hurricanes. Who said he did? ANALOGOUS? Hardly. Some might ASSUME that if the president WANTED to control the park police, he could get that done. And knowing Sheehan was there and that she'd been in the media's eye and a thorn in his paw for months, he could have requested "hands off". That would indeed be an assumption, but one that on its face, seem POSSIBLE--unlike yours, which is simply absurd.

Dear Mr. Dollar,

Why don't you just admit that you are wrong? I saw the news coverage of Katrina, and I clearly could see at least 10,000 corpses, just as they described. Do you not think that Fire Ants took a few surreptitious bites of those thousands of necrotic people?

As for Fire Ants, the people of Louisiana live in constant fear of them. I saw a news report where a lady had her ENTIRE HOUSE taken over by the ants! If that isn't proof of the man-eating tendencies of these insects, I don't know what is.

As for the toxic waters, clearly you missed the news reports on that matter. The removal of these waters will take MONTHS (I saw them say so on CNN) and the waters are a "toxic soup" that will "destroy the environment." I saw that on MSLSD.

Clearly there is a cover up in New Orleans. All the dead bodies from the Superdome and Convention Center were hidden. Over nine thousand of the 10,000 corpses have been destroyed and forgotten.

As for Cindy Sheehan, her arrest was completely a surprise to me and others. I wish I had seen this in advance:

http://dc.indymedia.org/newswire/display/130422/index.php

The brave smile on her face hid the horrific pain of her unjustified arrest, as you can see in this fine video:

rtsp://eyenet.rmod.llnwd.net/a134/o1/cbsnews/2005/09/26/video885725.rm

I saw Bush peeking out of the White House window giggling as he talked on a walkie talkie. Olby is on (to) something!

I don't doubt that we've all learned from Katrina, how ill prepared we are for a disaster. I'm glad the president saw fit to take responsibility for federal failure.

Oh they'll be plenty of blame to go around, Louisiana state gov. is an utter disaster. As for the local gov., watching Mayor Nagin on Oprah brought home to me that New Orlean's citizens have elected a player/party boy to oversee the city.

Too, with an investigation we'll come to see the role of the media in furthering this mess. If one can believe the reporting at all...which is questionable...there were relief workers who would not go into New Orleans because they were frightened by the violence, much of which turned out to be rumoring mongering by the media.

On a persona level, goodness me, I'm glad I don't have to defend Keith Olbermann and his editorializing and cheap shots. I don't see how any halfway intelligent and perceptive person could do that, no matter their party. You would have to have sold your soul to party politics or the sheer hatred of their opposition blinds them utterly. Combine that with defending the journalistic integrity of Keith while pointing the finger at FOX News and you've got a person who seriously needs a vacation from political blogs, issues, etc. Take some time off... get your head on straight...

I can't imagine myself defending any supposedly professional journalist for suggesting that the WH NOT playing politics with the local police is emblematic of their having lost their political savy. It's a remarkable 'damn them if they do and damn them if they don't' mindset that is so opportunistic it can only come from an utter partisan. It's a mindset that says, "Why aren't you following the script we've written for you! We wanted to accuse you of dirty tricks!"

Damn. The WH is accountable to the media and the public but they're not accountable to folks like that. They're not accountable to anyone in the media who's carrying a knife and their cherished assumptions and presumptions that openly.

Countdown's piece on the "rehiring" of former FEMA director Brown, which Olbermann promoed throughout the hour fills me with suspicion too. It has a Sponge Bob quality to it, in that there's some sort of twist or mischaracterization in the way that Olbermann mischaracterized James Dobson as having labeled a cartoon character as being gay. I wonder what the terms were when Brown left. I know it's common practice for former CEO's to stay in some capacity for some length of transition time.

So I'll await the transcripts of Countdown for last night to see just what was said about Brown's "rehire" and we'll see how that bit of news plays out. Again, I suspect it will be Sponge Bob and Duck Tape Man combined. Something meant for fair, balanced, accountable and honest Olbermann's D-Day audience.

As Johnny has brilliantly characterized that crowd:

Bob Cox seems to be running it by proxy. A bunch of righties once alternated days to watch and editorialize alleged nefarious acts of KO on this site. Cox once posted here daily --and used to label posts with names like "lefy loon," "DUer," "clear thinker" (for righties) and the like but hasn't since this site crawled back from the curb recently after many months of inactivity (which went unexplained). >>>

So that's how you label the folks you've talked to and argued with and laughed with over the past year, Paul? "A bunch of righties"? Johnny Dollar, Napa, Trey can be summed up with that label? And Bob Cox, a guy who invited YOU to blog here along with the "bunch of righties".

Well, the site may have crawled back from the curb "unexplained" (what? you see some sort of shadowy business?) but the inhabitants didn't crawl out the street gutter. Though there's been some strong debate, the boys never gutter sniped you.

Frankly, if you can debate with people for as long as you have these folks, and then just hang a political label on them, I feel sorrier for you than I can say.

Cecilia,

I really admire your attempts to converse with Paul and the others. However, you forget that these people are really "religious lefties." While you and I might disagree on a subject, I suspect we would attempt to look at the facts openly and honestly. Leftist ideologues like Olby and his fans have a predetermined set of ideas that overrule facts. It is a matter of faith with them. That's how they can claim falsified documents are "fake but accurate" or "global warming" is all the fault of humans and results in hurricanes etcetera. You may as well argue evolutionary theory with a creationist.

Come on, C...

Since when is "righty" derogatory? Over-simplistic, perhaps, but hardly a slam; you've read me long enough to know I don't intend it as one. Given my history with this site, should I mince words? I've used "righty" and "lefty" without reservation in the past and you've never voiced exception.

Given what this post is and does, "righty" is indeed descriptive of it, albeit shorthand. My use of it shouldn't provoke anger or hurt anyone's feelings.

You say, "Well, the site may have crawled back from the curb "unexplained" (what? you see some sort of shadowy business?) but the inhabitants didn't crawl out the street gutter." ---> No, I don't see shadows, but I am curious. I think it odd that Bob provided no explaination. My comment implied nothing about those who post here.

"Though there's been some strong debate, the boys never gutter sniped you." ---> You know better. I've been insulted, even sworn at; though not by everyone. There've been times you've interceded on my behalf, for which I've been grateful. You know I've often enjoyed the banter, otherwise, I'd not have returned. Even so, despite relationships I've had with regulars here, this site can be an EXTREMELY unfriendly at times--especially to lefties.

"Frankly, if you can debate with people for as long as you have these folks, and then just hang a political label on them, I feel sorrier for you than I can say." ---> And if I can debate people for as long as I have you folks and be criticized for hanging a political label on ANY of you, I feel sorry for all of us.

If you were insulted, I'm sorry. I didn't mean to be insulting.

Well, I don't mean to be overly touchy, Paul, but your post does sound dismissive of the site and the people here. It makes me wonder why you've hung around.

As being insulted here, we all have been. As is ususual for women online, I was referred to by one writer as being a "dumb slut" (I'm still looking for the male gender equivalent of that insult). But I can't remember the bloggers saying anything to you especially harsh and generally they've made it clear they enjoy your contribution.

C,

"I really admire your attempts to converse with Paul and the others. However, you forget that these people are really "religious lefties" (etc.)"

And you got your dander up about ME labeling you?

Krazy,

I don't "attempt" to converse with my political opposition, I'm here to do just that. I enjoy debating. It's one of the reasons I'm here.

I also enjoy chatting and bitching with my political allies.

Such as the likes of you.

Paul,

Krazy hasn't been here very long.

He doesn't know that you are a decent and pretty fair and balanced guy, when the blue mooon is in the seventh house and jupiter aligns with mars.

Nice logic Paul --

I label you and you try to use it against Cecilia! How Liberalific!

I am able to read Paul's posts. In fact, I believe I could write them based on a lefty script. I suppose I am supposed to ignore this and play nice in the sand box, but I would rather say what I think.

For Paul: "Howard Dean calls Republicans rich white people who don't care about minorities and you complain about me labeling you?"

I like that! Lets run with it! By the end of the day, we'll see who holds the "moral authority" to say what to whom. Perhaps a huge chart or decision tree can be created by a committee?

At times, I wondered why I've hung agound as well. As I said, it has been enjoyable at times. I feel my presence has provided some sort of balance. And there were moments, however fleeting, of agreement and compromise.

Perhaps the barbs I recall would have stuck with you longer if they'd been aimed at you. At some point, I kept a list. Some were every bit as insulting, albeit less gender-specific than the "dumb slut" jab. I remember that--I hope I recacted to it, I typically would (memory not being my strtong suit)--I do recall you wondering what the male equivalent would be. Suffice to say, there's plenty of derision to go around if we let ourselves succomb to it. As you know, I prefer we don't resort to insults and I hope you feel I resist labels. (Other than righty/lefty, lib/conservative, fundy/evangelical, etc.) which I use as shorthand.

Paul,

Please clarify the labels that are acceptable. I would not want to use a verboten label. Is a committee required, or do you have a list from the DNC available?

Krazy,

No one here wants to stifle or suppress you.

As long as Bob lets you post, you can certainly hurl insults at folks, just like you could scratch your groin and fart in public.

But spare us the suggestion that anyone is leaning on you to be less of a "free thinker" when we point out that you're being a boor.

Fair enough?

For God's sake!

Is everyone here a sensitive little flower? Did I say someone here wanted to "stifle or suppress" me?

As far as I know, I'm the only one who is happy with any level of discourse here.

My "insults" are often pointed statement used to make a point that can't be made through the usual channels.

The statement, "Please clarify the labels that are acceptable. I would not want to use a verboten label. Is a committee required, or do you have a list from the DNC available?" Is not an "insult." It is a pointed statement that highlights the absurdity of the debate about "labels" from BOTH Paul and you.

Your comments about Paul's "labeling" started all this. Quite frankly, I found your sensitivity on the issue unwarranted.

Krazy,

The labels I was referring to were little tags Bob used to attach to posts, based on the perceived political affiliation of visitors. He thought they were cute. If you check early archives they may still be there. Everything from "Black Boxer" to "Lefty Loon" fot us libs and "Clear Thinker" for repubs. We're better off without them.

Re your posts, you're free to write whatever you feel. Bob's good about that--it's the least of his faults;).

My suggested "rules of engagement" have nothing to do with this or any other site. They're based on simple manners, which, while I understood your reaction when I shared them, I don't feel are unreasonable. It's not a power thing, it's a politeness thing...a commodity I feel is increasingly endangered in our culture. If I don't like your tone, you won't hear from me. If you don't want me to respond, insult me. I won't counter.

Now, since you ASKED, I'm not particularly fond of "Pauly." That's what they called me in the joint. No, just kiddin. But since I have as many grown kids as I do prosthetic hips, "Pauly" sounds a bit juvenile to me. But if calling me "Pauly" stains your underwear, far be it from me to deny you this simple pleasure.

Paul,

I loved those "warning labels" that used to be attach to posts! There was something poetic about hitching "looney leftist" and "typical foul-mouthed liberal" to those long tangential posts by "m" and the angry ones by the "stupid slut" guy.

I wish Bob would bring those back.

Speaking of warning labels, I wish Countdown segments could come with them.

Can anyone come up with label for the segment Olbermann did about how the lights were on in New Orleans in the area where President Bush delievered his address? Remember-- the story that intimated that all of New Orleans could be lit up like a Christmas tree if Bush gave a damn about the place.

What warning label should that story garner?

Well, I would use the following system as a template if I were you, Cecilia:

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?theme=29

You could use it to chart the "bias threat" that Olby poses, although it would always be "severe."

You could also rate the level of bias of each story.

Brilliant idea, Krazy.

And just to make things more secure, you might want to duct tape plastic over your television screen when Countdown is on.

C,

K and C,
"Nice logic Paul -- I label you and you try to use it against Cecilia! How Liberalific!"

--->I missed this post earlier. Sorry to have mistaken you for K, C. I'm sure C recognized my error as just that.

And K, if you prefer to view all liberals as a monolith, marching to a solo drum behind Howard Dean or anyone, where've you been? Unified, we're not. You misunderestimate us.

I'm here as an innocent bystander. But I must say that after reading the comments, my allegiance goes to the opinion that Keith Olbermann is a complete jackass. Last time I looked he had the least viewers of any of the cable news network shows. Those that remain are leftie conspiracy theorists who only see what they want to see, and they don't let the facts get in the way. I guess that makes 'belligerentlyinformed' one of them there anti-American radicals who litter the American capital and support some Gold Digger Mother who's son would probably 'off' her if he was still alive.

Dear DickMr,

I agree that poor Casey would not be happy with his Mom. I draw the line at attributing Matricidal tendencies to the poor kid. No son with a shred of decency would "frag" his own Mommy, no matter how big a monster she might be.

The rest of the family is probably hiding in the Dakotas waiting for Momma SheeHaw's few weeks of fame to end. The press loves the "idea" of Cindy, so they prop her up like the propagandists they are. I just wonder how long the MSM can stick with Cindy as she shoots her mouth off, blaming Jews for terrorism, demanding we get our troops out of New Orleans etcetera. Funny how we never see those tirades on MSLSD or CNN by the way! Must not be newsworthy.

Well, OFF is too strong of a word; but like Clinton I get to change what is is. So lets use off as just pushing her 'off' Jesse Jackson's balcony. Did you see her beam in the presence of both the cops AND Jesse the panderer?! Wow....scratchy voiced slut lady is on the mountain top. But this is good, the day in the valley will hurt her all the more....no press and that babe will have severe depression; cured only by a visit from Barney Frank. Truly a man with no ulterior motives on her body fantastico! Yeah, I know this is harsh, but I bet that bus was bouncing as it headed for DC.

Liberal pretending to be their version of a conservative ALERT!