26 homeless are killed each year -- OK. How many homeless kill / rape innocent people every year? That number is a hell of a lot more than 26. And how about a solution? Maybe the ACLU should stop fighting against placing schizophrenics who can't take care of themselves in mental institutions? I'm sure Olby had a solution, right? Right!

As for Murtha, he is the result of the worst policy in the world -- the draft. Cowards aplenty were drafted, and each one was forced to serve. Some managed to get injured despite their cowardice and receive medals. Perhaps Murtha was one, perhaps not. All I can say is the guy is a piece of shit NOW. Imagine Olby as a soldier as a consequence of the draft, and you can understand the existence of Kerry and Murtha.

As a result of Olby's concerns about the plight of the innocent homeless, I decided to find out what damage these fine homeless people do to innocent civilians. Searches proved there are plenty of homeless advocate sites, and sites that track crimes against "people experiencing homelessness." However, it was very difficult to find statistics on homeless criminals. Maybe this is why:

http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/bminiter/?id=105001962

"Not even the New York City Police Department can tell us how many crimes the homeless committed last year--despite having revolutionized its data-collection and analysis abilities during the Giuliani administration. "We just don't keep statistics on that," a police spokesman told me."

I wonder why.

I didn't see Countdown, but when talking about series of crimes targetting homeless people, it would be relevant to report the number of victims per their pop. etc.

Olbermann arguing that this is an epidemic and pointing the finger at "government" (Republicans, in other words) is typical Olbermann blather.

As to Murtha, I really am at a lost as why Bozell revisited such charges. Murtha isn't running for office on the platform of his bravery and leadership in Nam...as Kerry ran. He's using it in the sense that he's former military (generally folks predisposed towards Republicans) and formerly a supporter of the Iraq War (it is interesting how he was a nonentity then. But Murtha is not using his military service in the same way that Kerry made a case that he was a brave warrior and commander and that Bush was not.

Again, I think it was a cheap and unnecessary thing for Bozell (a man I admire) to drag this stuff up.

Course, in the case of Olbermann complaining about it, he ought to look in the mirror. He tries to smear people every night. Whether it's O'Reilly's sports record in college or vehemently arguing that his "good friend" Gibson meant something Gibson says he did not mean, Olbermann is a gleeful character assassin.

And as usual Olbermann is utterly impervious to irony. He's like some of those people who post at Inside Cable News blogsite, who accuse everyone else of bias, while being oblivious to the fact that, based on their own criteria, they are the pot calling the kettle blac. But in their world and Olby's, being a liberal democrat, who distains any Rupert Murdoch employees, is a sign of balance and centrism.

Just one more example of this skewered thinking, is that the usual souce for Olbermann's WPITW candidates is the website Media Matters. Media Matters is the liberal version of Bozell's Media Research Center.

Insight ain't exactly the strong suit of Olbermann and his defenders.

This is a pathetic site. How can anyone justify the beating of a homeless person by saying that it only happened twenty-six times last year? One beating is an outrage and there is no place in our society for this type of moral relativity.

Thank goodness that we have people like Keith Olbermann.

Oh grow up, Robert, and learn to read.

I suppose Olbermann would be a god-sent to people who can't think or...read.

No one justified the killing of anyone. Though, one murder is too many, that there are about 26 homeless people murdered each year, was mentioned because that number hardly constitutes what was described as an epidemic.

For Olbermann to characterize it that way and to then politicize the issue by blaming the government is simplistic, half-assed, agenda-driven analysis.

Robert, Robert, Robert . . .

The SELECTIVE nature of Olby's rants is under attack here. While "those experiencing homelessness" may experience violence against their persons, they also commit crime like crazy (including against yours truly more than once). Why not talk about the epidemic of crime by the homeless, rather than push an epidemic that isn't? It's Olby's Chavez-like agenda that is served by Countdown.

Has anyone else noticed this statement popping up almost verbatim around the site:

"Thank goodness that we have people like Keith Olbermann."

Seems like Olby propaganda ("Olberganda") to me. Let's take a page from Keith's playbook, and posit that it is Olby's operatives planting positive propaganda. An investigation is in order! Inquiring minds want to know.

Yes, the timing is very suspicious, is it not? Every time there is some bad news about Olbermann, all of a sudden these comments appear. At least as coincidental as terror alerts.

26 isn't much. agreed. neither is 3000, so let's get real and get over using the 9/11 event as a retarded emotional cry for the government to take over the country.

Obi-Wan,

I'll ignore that no one argued that 26 "isn't much".... but your implying that terrorist do not pose a further threat is beyond idiotic.

cecilia,

please refrain from creating strawmen to swing at. please show me how we from my saying "neither is 3000, so let's get real and get over using the 9/11 event" to my implying that "terrorist do not pose a further threat" than those who kill the homeless. i'm simply saying that 3000 lives is not worth igniting the most massive government expansion in our lifetimes if 26 isn't.

what is it, 400,000 people die each year due to smoking related illness or something like that, yet all philip morris needs to do is rename itself to altria and no harm done since they're giving the customers want they want and that's good for the GDP.

i'm not a math major but 3000 to 26 is roughly a factor of 100 and so is 400,000 to 3,000. yet, the 3000 is considered the risk to our nation justify massive government, but not the 400,000 and not the 26. let's pick a yardstick and stick with it. that's my only point. thanks.

btw, "26 isn't much" in that it doesn't constitute an epidemic which was repeated on this thread before i nodded in agreement. i was assuming the context would be obvious.

Obi-Wan,

I know you mean well, but "the most massive government expansion in our lifetimes" is a meaningless phrase.

More massive than Lincoln arresting legislators who might vote for sucession? More massive than FDR arresting American citizens of Japanese descent?

More massive than blue laws, or laws forcing business owners to ban smoking in THEIR establishments? More massive than allowing local govt's to take your property if they believe they have a use for it that might increase tax revenue. How about laws forcing some pharmecists to sell RU486 when it's against their religious beliefs? How about laws that raise taxes in order to take more of our money?

Bottom-line, Obi-Wan: You can't pretend it's business as usual when you're at war. And it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't scenario for whoever's calling the shots.

Now get back to me when you can talk instead of spouting phrases picked up from Mother Jones.

This obsession with the few homeless injured by non-homeless reminds me of the obsession with Abu Ghraib. Thousands of terrorists blow up our troops, kill civilians with bombs and behead hostages with nary a peep from the press, but a "combatant" with panties on his head warrants a million stories. How stupid.

BTW, the homeless are injured BY OTHER HOMELESS 99.9% of the time.

> Now get back to me when you can talk

that's pretty arrogant.

it's simple. massive in the sense of expenditure. there's no mystery that i'm hiding. it should be clear that i'm talking about the department of homeland security. the evidence is right under your nose. you can acknowledge it or you can talk arrogantly. your pick.

Actually, Obi-Wan it's arrogant to argue that because I disagree with you that I must not understand your case. I understand it, I still don't agree with it.

It's also arrogant to imply that I am willfully ignoring evidence right under my nose.

You're going to have to do better than that, sweetheart.

(ThAT arrogant enough for you?)

i never said that you didn't understand it. only that you refused to acknowledge it, nor did i said you were willfully ignoring evidence. i am saying that generally every argument you've made so far is a strawman argument. there's no way to respond to such statements. that may be the way you browbeat your boyfriend, but there's no reason for me to put up with such nonsense.