Buy Text-Link-Ads here
Recent Comments

    follow OlbyWatch on Twitter

    In

    John Gibson Welcomes Back the Infamous, Deplorable Keith Olbermann

    tonyome wrote: <a href="http://twitchy.com/2014/07/28/voxs-laughable-praise-of-keith-olber... [more](11)

    In

    Welcome Back, Olby!

    syvyn11 wrote: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/keith-olbermann-reviving-worst... [more](9)

    In

    Former Obama Support/Donor Releases Song Supporting Romney/Ryan: "We'll Take It Back Again" by Kyle Tucker

    syvyn11 wrote: @philly I don't see that happening. ESPN has turned hyper left in recent... [more](64)

    In

    Blue-Blog-a-Palooza: Ann Romney Edition!

    djthereplay wrote: By mkdawuss on August 29, 2012 6:17 PM Will John Gibson be having a "Red-B... [more](4)

    In

    No Joy in Kosville...Mighty Olby Has Struck Out

    djwolf76 wrote: "But the FOX-GOP relationship (which is far more distinguished and prevalen... [more](23)

    KO Mini Blog



    What's in the Olbermann Flood Feed?
    Subscribe to Olbermann Flood Feed:
    RSS/XML

    KO Countdown Clock


    Warning: mktime() [function.mktime]: It is not safe to rely on the system's timezone settings. You are *required* to use the date.timezone setting or the date_default_timezone_set() function. In case you used any of those methods and you are still getting this warning, you most likely misspelled the timezone identifier. We selected 'America/New_York' for 'EST/-5.0/no DST' instead in /home/owatch/www/www.olbermannwatch.com/docs/countdown.php on line 5
    KO's new contract with MSNBC ends in...
    0 days 0 hours 0 minutes

    OlbermannWatch.com "My Faves" Set

    OlbermannWatch.com Favorited Photos from other Flickr Users

    Got OlbyPhotos? See some on Flickr? DO NOT email us. Send us a FlickrMail instead. Include a link to the photo. If we like the photo you will see it displayed in the Olby Flickr Flood above.

    New to Flickr? Sign up for a FREE Flickr account!


    Got some OlbyVideo? See some on YouTube? DO NOT email us. Send us a YouTube Messages instead. Include a link to the video. If we like the video you will see it displayed in our favorites list in our YouTube page.

    New to YouTube? Sign up for a FREE YouTube account!

    Red Meat Blog
    Keith Olbermann Quotes
    Countdown Staff Writers

    If they're not on Keith's payroll...

    ...they should be...

    Crooks & Liars
    Daily Kos
    Eschaton
    Huffington Post
    Media Matters for America
    MyDD
    News Corpse
    No Quarter
    Raw Story
    Talking Points Memo
    Think Progress
    TVNewser
    Keith Lovers

    MSNBC's Countdown
    Bloggerman
    MSNBC Transcripts
    MSNBC Group at MSN

    Drinking with Keith Olbermann
    Either Relevant or True
    KeithOlbermann.org
    Keith Olbermann is Evil
    Olbermann Nation
    Olbermann.org
    Thank You, Keith Olbermann

    Don't Be Such A Douche
    Eyes on Fox
    Liberal Talk Radio
    Oliver Willis
    Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly

    Anonymous Rat
    For This Relief Much Thanks
    Watching Olbermann Watch

    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site I
    Keith Olbermann Fanlisting Site II
    Keith Olbermann Links
    Olberfans
    Sports Center Altar
    Nothing for Everyone

    Democratic Underground KO Forum
    Television Without Pity KO Forum
    Loony KO Forum (old)
    Loony KO Forum (new)
    Olberfans Forum (old)
    Olberfans Forum (new)
    Keith Watchers

    186k per second
    Ace of Spades HQ
    Cable Gamer
    Dean's World
    Doug Ross@Journal
    Extreme Mortman
    Fire Keith Olbermann
    Hot Air
    Inside Cable News
    Instapundit
    Jawa Report
    Johnny Dollar's Place
    Just One Minute
    Little Green Footballs
    Mark Levin
    Media Research Center
    Moonbattery.com
    Moorelies
    National Review Media Blog
    Narcissistic Views
    Newsbusters
    Pat Campbell Show
    Radio Equalizer
    Rathergate
    Riehl World View
    Sister Toldjah
    Toys in the Attic
    Webloggin
    The Dark Side of Keith Olbermann
    World According to Carl

    Thanks for the blogroll link!

    Age of Treason
    Bane Rants
    The Blue Site
    Cabal of Doom-De Oppresso Libre
    Chuckoblog
    Conservative Blog Therapy
    Conservathink
    Country Store
    Does Anyone Agree?
    The Drunkablog!
    Eclipse Ramblings
    If I were President of USA
    I'll Lay Down My Glasses
    Instrumental Rationality
    JasonPye.com
    Kevin Dayhoff
    Last Train Out Of Hell
    Leaning Straight Up
    Limestone Roof
    Mein BlogoVault
    NostraBlogAss
    Peacerose Journal
    The Politics of CP
    Public Secrets: from the files of the Irishspy
    Rat Chat
    Return of the Conservatives
    The Right Place
    Rhymes with Right
    seanrobins.com
    Six Meat Buffet
    Sports and Stuff
    Stout Republican
    Stuck On Stupid
    Things I H8
    TruthGuys
    Verum Serum
    WildWeasel

    Friends of OlbyWatch

    Aaron Barnhart
    Eric Deggans
    Jason Clarke
    Ron Coleman
    Victria Zdrok
    Keith Resources

    Google News: Keith Olbermann
    Feedster: Keith Olbermann
    Technorati: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Keith Olbermann
    Wikipedia: Countdown
    Wikiality: Keith Olbermann
    Keith Olbermann Quotes on Jossip
    Keith Olbermann Photos
    NNDB Olbermann Page
    IMDB Olbermann Page
    Countdown Guest Listing & Transcripts
    Olbermann Watch FAQ
    List of Politics on Countdown (by party)
    Mark Levin's Keith Overbite Page
    Keith Olbermann's Diary at Daily Kos
    Olbermann Watch in the News

    Houston Chronicle
    Playboy
    The Journal News
    National Review
    San Antonio Express
    The Hollywood Reporter
    The Journal News
    Los Angeles Times
    American Journalism Review
    Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
    St. Petersburg Times
    Kansas City Star
    New York Post/Page Six
    Washington Post
    Associated Press
    PBS
    New York Daily News
    Online Journalism Review
    The Washingon Post
    Hartford Courant
    WTWP-AM
    The New York Observer
    The Washington Post


    Countdown with Keith Olbermann
    Great Moments in Broadcast Journalism
    Great Thanks Hall of Fame
    Keith Olbermann
    MSM KO Bandwagon
    Olbermann
    Olbermann Watch Channel on You Tube
    Olbermann Watch Debate
    Olbermann Watch Image Gallery
    Olbermann Watch Polling Service
    OlbermannWatch
    OlbyWatch Link Roundup
    TVNewser "Journalism"

    July 2013
    September 2012
    August 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012
    February 2012
    January 2012
    December 2011
    November 2011
    October 2011
    September 2011
    August 2011
    July 2011
    June 2011
    May 2011
    April 2011
    March 2011
    February 2011
    January 2011
    December 2010
    November 2010
    October 2010
    September 2010
    August 2010
    July 2010
    June 2010
    May 2010
    April 2010
    March 2010
    February 2010
    January 2010
    December 2009
    November 2009
    October 2009
    September 2009
    August 2009
    July 2009
    June 2009
    May 2009
    April 2009
    March 2009
    February 2009
    January 2009
    December 2008
    November 2008
    October 2008
    September 2008
    August 2008
    July 2008
    June 2008
    May 2008
    April 2008
    March 2008
    February 2008
    January 2008
    December 2007
    November 2007
    October 2007
    September 2007
    August 2007
    July 2007
    June 2007
    May 2007
    April 2007
    March 2007
    February 2007
    January 2007
    December 2006
    November 2006
    October 2006
    September 2006
    August 2006
    July 2006
    June 2006
    May 2006
    April 2006
    March 2006
    February 2006
    January 2006
    December 2005
    November 2005
    October 2005
    September 2005
    August 2005
    June 2005
    May 2005
    April 2005
    March 2005
    February 2005
    January 2005
    December 2004
    November 2004

    Google

    Olbermann Watch Masthead

    Managing Editor

    Robert Cox
    olby at olbywatch dot com

    Contributors

    Mark Koldys
    Johnny Dollar's Place

    Brandon Coates
    OlbyWatch

    Chris Matthews' Leg
    Chris Matthews' Leg

    Howard Mortman
    Extreme Mortman

    Trajan 75
    Think Progress Watch

    Konservo
    Konservo

    Doug Krile
    The Krile Files

    Teddy Schatz
    OlbyWatch

    David Lunde
    Lundesigns

    Alex Yuriev
    Zubrcom

    Red Meat
    OlbyWatch



    Technorati Links to OlbyWatchLinks to OlbermannWatch.com

    Technorati Links to OlbyWatch Blog posts tagged with "Olbermann"

    Combined Feed
    (OlbyWatch + KO Mini-blog)

    Who Links To Me


    Mailing List RSS Feed
    Google Groups
    Subscribe to Olbermann Watch Mailing List
    Email:
    Visit this group



    XML
    Add to Google
    Add to My Yahoo!
    Subscribe with Bloglines
    Subscribe in NewsGator Online

    Add to My AOL
    Subscribe with Pluck RSS reader
    R|Mail
    Simpify!
    Add to Technorati Favorites!

    Subscribe in myEarthlink
    Feed Button Help


    Olbermann Watch, "persecuting" Keith since 2004


    May 12, 2007
    Keith Olbermann's Girlfriend, Katy Tur's On-line Job Hunt

    Well what do we have here? Why it seems that Keith Olbermann's girlfriend has been uploading her video projects to CurrentTv.com's website. For those of you not in the know, this is the website branch of the Al Gore-owned cable network. Olbermann has previously described his girlfriend as a "Freelance Cable Producer", but judging from her work here we can easily see why that translates into, "Unemployed".

    The theory behind Al Gore's little cable television project is that viewers submit videos to the on-line website, and that visitors to the website rate the videos or "greenlight" them. Once a video is greenlit, it is then considered for airing on the Current TV cable network. Now apparently young Katy Tur has been spending her time making "girlfriend on the street" interviews, which in Keith's mind, apparently qualifies her to be a "freelance cable producer".

    What types of videos has she shot? Why there's coverage of the Circus Elephant Walk. She probably mistook the elephants for Olbermann's backside. Then there are political pieces, where she's obviously gained entrance into press events and the like for political candidates like McCain, Bloomberg, and Bill Richardson.

    She seems to have let her hair go darker from her California Blonde party-girl days, perhaps to give her a more "serious" on-air look. And she seems to have ditched the square nerd glasses (most recently seen on her boy (okay, old man-friend), Olbermann. But what she can't seem to shake are the rampant head-tossing and Valley Girl twang.

    And then there are the comments left by Ms. Katy Tur at her CurrentTV page:

    I am not a journalism student, but I grew up in the business and I seemed to soak some of it in (much to my parents chagrin). Now I'm just freelancing, trying to get my foot in the door somewhere.

    Foot in the door somewhere? Huh? Katy's parents are Robert and Marika Tur, who broke the story on the LA Riots, shot the Reginald Denney beating and found OJ Simpson on his infamous slow-speed chase. And before she moved to NYC, Katy did have a foot in the door, in fact, you might say that she had her entire body in the door as her first job out of college, sans journalism degree, was as a producer at KTLA in Los Angeles. We are going to take a wild guess here that not many kids straight out of college, without a journalism degree land a job working at a television station in the second largest television market in the U.S. But I guess even that wasn't enough of a forward push for Ms. Tur, she dumped her boyfriend and took up with one Keith Olbermann. And she's telling us that's not even helping her? Well the mystery isn't too hard to figure out if you watch these videos. It's reassuring to know that no amount of connections can buy you talent and Ms. Tur seems singularly lacking in talent. Perhaps her best talents are off-camera?


    Posted by Brandon | Permalink | Comments (362) | | View blog reactions

    362 Comments

    Keep us updated on his other favorite person, Brian Stelter, and his job hunt too!

    Is that a naked woman on her site?

    She sounds about as vapid as the lunk-head she is dating. After watching the McCain video, I thought that the twat was setting him up to be "Worst Person in the Worlddddddd"

    As Always, Great Thanks!

    Putting a naked woman on her site was probably the only way she could get Olbermann to look at her videos.

    I'd like to believe that some of the comments and ridicule of this woman (whose only crime is being involved with Keith Olbermann) is being done by pimple faced types whose only reference to female anatomy comes from online porn.

    Unfortunately though, I think she is being bashed by men (obstensively ...) with wives and daughters and who wouldnt tolerate it if it were happening to them.

    In vernacular I think even you will understand, guys:

    You suck!

    Cecelia, Tur posted these videos online herself for the sole purpose of seeking comments on them. The quote that I used in my initial post is directly from her. Olbermann has referenced her so many times in interviews and on-air that I've lost count. She's also the daughter of public figures. And if you've watched the videos, you'll see she's not ready for any television station, even if it's in Bumscrew Idaho. There is absolutely nothing that Iv'e quoted about her or from her that wasn't already on a website. If you don't like posts about her, I suggest you don't read them. Just a thought.

    Don't everyone jump to subscribe to Katie's videos all at once!

    Cecelia, I went to the link and viewed some of her videos and read some of her comments. This girl is flat out not ready, much less not ready for prime time.

    If I had to guess I would say she is pursuing a hobby which KO then uses to say she is a 'freelance cable producer'. Perhaps to deflect any innuendos or criticisms of the personal arrangement they have.

    As for the way down in the gutter language and slurs I agree. But from comments about Katy Tur to and about high profile Repub women and even to you and me there are many men on both sides that use the anonymity afforded by the internet to indulge in language that they refrain from in their personal lives except all male groups. Is it embarrassment or the fear of getting the tar beaten out of them by the women's male protectors?

    If we are going to participate I guess it is something that we are going to have get used to and give it the attention it deserves, none.

    Grammie

    Remember, Olbermann does not have a journalism degee either (has a BA in communications). Goodness she is pretty bad. though. I do not understand why she feels she has to do this, can't Olbermann just get her a job at MSNBC? I guess she thinks this makes her legit. Yikes! One thing is for sure, they are perfect for eachother. Two vapid & empty headed blowhards.

    Cecelia, Tur posted these videos online herself for the sole purpose of seeking comments on them. The quote that I used in my initial post is directly from her. Olbermann has referenced her so many times in interviews and on-air that I've lost count. She's also the daughter of public figures. And if you've watched the videos, you'll see she's not ready for any television station, even if it's in Bumscrew Idaho. There is absolutely nothing that Iv'e quoted about her or from her that wasn't already on a website. If you don't like posts about her, I suggest you don't read them. Just a thought.

    Posted by: Brandon at May 12, 2007 3:22 PM


    Brandon,

    Being the daughter of people who are successful, or being in a relationship with a public figure who mentions he's in a relationship with you, or having an ex-boyfriend post pictures of you on his site, does not give you, Brandon, the moral coinage to make dirty quips about a woman simply because you don't like her man.

    Olbermann has nothing to do with it. What about what she might feel?

    Weren't you just calling Olbermann mysognistic for just the same type of behavior?

    Yeah, you're right there's nothing I can do about it but not read it. I know I'm even inviting puerile comments towards her, from some segments, for even voicing this. But I'm going on record that this is ugly and unfair and I wouldn't want it done your daughter, no matter who she dated or what website she had touting her work and her professional credentials.

    "In vernacular I think even you will understand, guys:

    You suck!"


    Here, here, Cecilia is on the mark.

    Leave his family and friends alone.

    Criticize Olbermann's public work and not his private matters. Even IF he does talk about it.

    This is really irresponsible, Mr. Cox.

    This exemplifies everything that has gone wrong with political discourse, especially on the internet. One side does it and that's an excuse for the other side to do it time ten.

    Olbermann is a lousy news anchor. Period.

    Anything else about him should be off limits.

    Grow up.

    Grammie,

    I don't have any problem with folks criticising her work, though the only interest in that really is due to her love interest.

    This isn't just people acting like jerks on a comment board. If you'll read the last comment in Brandon's blog about her work, that's on the front page of this site, you'll see what I mean.

    I think one or two pictures of her would have been enough too. For goodness sakes is there anyone here too immature to imagine that they, their wife, their daughter might have gotten drunken or silly pictures snapped of them at college, that they wished weren't out there? That they might be the beneficiary of revenge by the ole college boyfriend?

    Just because you can do something, does it mean you should abandon any discretion and do it, when you know the sort of attention it's going to engender? It's not right. I would have thought better judgement and integrity would have prevailed.

    I've said my piece. I'm finished now. Take it or leave it.

    Ce---ce---lia your breaking my heart.....your breaking my confidence daily...Oh Ce---ce---lia I'm down on my knees, I'm begging you PLLLEEEEEASE STOP READING THE KATY TUR THREADS!

    Cecelia, Ms. Tur is a public figure, she has public figure parents, has a public figure boyfriend and wants a job on the PUBLIC airwaves. She is fair game. It may not be right, but in this era of celebrity journalism she IS fair game.

    As for the cautionary tale of "silly photos" welcome to the YouTube Generation. They are barely a year old, they were posted in real time, and since she uses a TOPLESS NAKED WOMAN as an icon to represent herself, I doubt she asked the boyfriend to take them down, once they broke up.

    "Cecelia, Ms. Tur is a public figure, she has public figure parents,"

    Gee, I thought this was Olbermann watch.

    About Keith Olbermann.

    Not about his friends. Not about his family. Not about his dog.

    Cecelia, Brandon and B Coates are the same person. I sure can be slow and backwards sometimes.

    I know what you meant and I railed against the same thing in the past. Actually, I think it gives the big wimps a spur to more of the same.

    Perhaps technology will one day allow some big strong family men from the woman treated that way to jump through their monitor and beat the living crap out of them. Now that is a daydream that I could go for.

    Grammie

    "Gee, I thought this was Olbermann watch."

    About Keith Olbermann..."who goes on and on and on and on and on about the future MRS OLBERMANN". So the name will work out in the long run.

    Cecelia, Ms. Tur is a public figure, she has public figure parents, has a public figure boyfriend and wants a job on the PUBLIC airwaves. She is fair game. It may not be right, but in this era of celebrity journalism she IS fair game.

    As for the cautionary tale of "silly photos" welcome to the YouTube Generation. They are barely a year old, they were posted in real time, and since she uses a TOPLESS NAKED WOMAN as an icon to represent herself, I doubt she asked the boyfriend to take them down, once they broke up.

    Posted by: Saved by the Cats! at May 12, 2007 5:05 PM


    Katy Tur is not a public figure simply because her parents and her boyfriend are successful.

    If having a professional website makes you a public figure, then why don't we post some of your friend's pictures who have such sites, and make dirty comments about where their talent really lies, etc.

    My father was an attorney and part-time professional photographer. Among his portfolio were nude pictures. His books and magazines on photography included some too. If you happen to go to a museum, STC, you might see a few there, as well.

    Grow up the hell up.

    ..."who goes on and on and on and on and on about the future MRS OLBERMANN". So the name will work out in the long run."

    So that means people can make fun of his future wife?

    Make fun of Olbermann. Not his future wife.

    If Ms. Tur was not dating Olbermann, would we even be talking about her?

    The only reason people are making fun of Ms. Tur - who did NOTHING to warrant these attacks - is to somehow get Olbermann.

    Ms. Tur didn't invite this. Olbermann did.

    So go after Olbermann.

    This is really cheap to attack someone's friends because you don't like that person.


    Ladies, did you rally against the KKK link and photo? I can not quite remember, but I don't think so. We all have our threshold and will make are own decisions if we should cross it or not. None of us can really make that decision for someone else.

    The original link to Ms. Tur was already in a comment thread here (from mid 2006), I thought the dopey doggie photo was a stupid, misleading annoying trick to drive up traffic to OW. Perhpas I crossed the line by providing an updated link, but whats done is done.

    "My father was an attorney and part-time professional photographer. Among his portfolio were nude pictures. His books and magazines on photography included some too. If you happen to go to a museum, STC, you might see a few there, as well.
    Grow up the hell up."
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 12, 2007 5:17 PM

    Sorry if I don't get too upset worrying about threads and comments about and from privilege rich girls.

    I meant "privileged rich girls."

    BTW: topless naked women make a bunch of sense for museum art, not a whole lot of sense for your "video" resume.

    "None of us can really make that decision for someone else. "

    But we sure as hell can condemn that decision.

    Final word: Going after people's friends - FRIENDS - because you don't like that person is cheap. Real cheap.

    Imagine if this were you?

    Ms. Tur has done nothing to you or me or anyone else on this site. She deserves none of these attacks.

    Keith Olbermann's journalism and his journalistic decisions deserve being criticized. That's what this site is supposed to be about.

    Who his future wife or who his friends are are absolutely irrelevant to his professional performance.

    [all of the above anonymous posts are from me; I forgot to sign in]

    The karma bites chick he had a one-night stand with is much hotter than his present day Lolita.

    http://s142.photobucket.com/albums/r101/karmabite/

    Cats I have a slightly different view from Cecelia.

    I think that KO makes her a fairly bona fide public figure by bringing her so prominently into the limelight for his own personal reasons. Combine that with his longtime penchant for personally nasty and irrelevant comments and many people are going to respond just as they have.

    But, having said that, a lot in these two threads have gone way over the line. There is nothing that she has done to deserve some of the comments themselves and the language that has been used to express it makes it worse. And nothing excuses, to my mind, the pigs who make it a habit to wallow in the swill as they do. We are not talking about every comment made.

    More to the point that both of us have made is the inexcusable nature of many men using the filthiest language imaginable as a matter of course and/or directed at certain women in particular.

    I am no shrinking violet and can be sarcastic, insulting and acidic and I'm not complaining about that being directed back at me.

    But this other stuff is different. I can tell you the date time and place I first heard/was the recipient of f**k. It was afternoon of Mardi Gras day two days before the birth of my first son at the locked front door of a family friend's apartment on Royal St. I was twenty six years old. Sheltered? No, it was still an age when women never used such language and men didn't use it in front of or to any women. And never discussed women in the way it is done now except strictly in private groups of friends.

    Remember that ad "You've come a long way, baby" Some of those paths forward have been detours into some nasty foul pits.

    And this is pertinent, I think, to KO because he is being used as the justification for it.

    Well, should I perhaps batten down the hatches before the flame throwers crawl out from under their rocks.

    Grammie

    But we sure as hell can condemn that decision. Posted by: Ohboy at May 12, 2007 5:47 PM

    Fair enough. I should have stopped coming here when Cox posted the KKK thread & link. I did for a while. I was trying to justify the Katy postings in some way, but now I feel terrible for providing the updated link and finding it funny. I should know better. I consider myself a feminist for christs sakes.

    Thanks Grammie for providing clarification. I appreciate your clear headed comment. I guess my issues with "spolied rich kids" reared its ugly head. Sorry, I wish I could take the link back.

    "Well, should I perhaps batten down the hatches before the flame throwers crawl out from under their rocks."

    Well, I'm with you. That makes three.

    I've always had a belief: You can attack me. You can take me on. For the most part, I let it slide.

    But don't ever f***ing mess with my family or friends.

    I can make fun of my family and friends. Because, of course, it's not done out of malice.

    But, buddy, no one else can. No way.

    I agree about the nastiness and it’s inappropriate. But, a pic or two is fair game. Olby brought this on by frequently mentioning the gf, so of course his hardcore fans would want to see the one he chose over them. Bob said a regular search that lands readers on this site is "Katy Tur" and "Katy Tur photo" which means people have been looking.

    KO’s comments about others are often very mean. For example, the runaway bride. She was not a public figure but a troubled individual whose private affair went public when a police search brought her to the forefront. So as a newsman he should report the event and be done with it instead of mocking her, her fiancé, and their religious convictions about abstinence. Olby attracts these caustic comments for good reason. Too bad it shadows those close to him.

    And I agree with Grammie, he has his own reasons for bringing KT into this. I believe he thinks having a live-in gf makes him look normal after the fan-sex episode. Frankly, he would have been better off having a picture of the two of them of his choice with one of the many articles in which he made a reference to her. Then there would be no need to find others pics. Maybe he’d better get a better publicist.

    But at least the loons had something to do today, checking out all the pods at the Current TV site.

    Cats, it was a link to Aryan Nation . I didn't agree with your take on the link being there. I also linked to it, read their short blurb and got out quick.

    Correct me if I'm wrong in any of my recollections, but that was one of several links in a roundup on the Imus debacle. Considering the subject was racism I thought it was appropriate.

    I also didn't see that the link somehow gave the impression that R Cox or OW could be construed as endorsing or condoning those cretins.

    It had the opposite effect on me. The jolt of the picture combined with the relatively well written, straight forward and concise tone of the statement was a bit scary.

    This group is a very small ineffectual way out there fringe with no power or influence. We can't dismiss them out of hand because history is full of such groups rising to power, from the early Christians (a cult, per the first century Romans, way out there), to the Nazis in early 1920 Germany. to the growing German Bund in our own country in the 1930s and very early 1940s.

    Groups such as these can sometimes rise to complete power or become large enough to have some influence and power or die obscure deaths.

    So, I actually think the link R Cox posted to The Aryan Nation served a good purpose. Pretend they don't exist and one day we may wake up with a king sized rattler slithering around the country.

    Grammie

    Cats, after I went to all the time and toil to produce my masterful essay on The Aryan Nation you are making noises like you are leaving us for good.

    I hope not. You are a much valued poster here.

    Grammie

    This group is a very small ineffectual way out there fringe with no power or influence. We can't dismiss them out of hand because history is full of such groups rising to power, from the early Christians (a cult, per the first century Romans, way out there), to the Nazis in early 1920 Germany. to the growing German Bund in our own country in the 1930s and very early 1940s.

    Groups such as these can sometimes rise to complete power or become large enough to have some influence and power or die obscure deaths.

    So, I actually think the link R Cox posted to The Aryan Nation served a good purpose. Pretend they don't exist and one day we may wake up with a king sized rattler slithering around the country.

    Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at May 12, 2007 6:28 PM

    Maybe your spectacles need adjusting.
    That king size rattler is alive and well in the Constitution defying Bush Administration.
    But then again, they're doing exactly what you want them to be doing.

    The karma bites chick he had a one-night stand with is much hotter than his present day Lolita.

    http://s142.photobucket.com/albums/r101/karmabite/

    Posted by: at May 12, 2007 5:54 PM

    Yowsa! Amazing :O

    Keith has no idea what to do with a beautiful woman.

    If that's the karma bites chick she is definitely hot. And those naughty photos look pretty tame.

    Katy is fair game for Dan Patrick. Between "take your daughter to work day" and "are you engaged?" he likes to get his digs in. Then there's the time Dan mentioned the only reason she is with "an old toad" is because "you have a TV show" and even had KO repeating that comment.

    Only Chicken Blogger (hey, Chicken, did you know a chicken's brain is the size of a pea) we can always count on you to miss the point and go for the stupidly absurd.

    "That king size rattler is alive and well in the Constitution defying Bush Administration."

    The Aryan Nation taking over the Presidency is the equivalent to the GWB Administration.

    Ohboy, I think we may have the worst case of BDS we've ever seen. I had no idea it could progress to such malignant proportions.

    Grammie

    "Ohboy, I think we may have the worst case of BDS we've ever seen. I had no idea it could progress to such malignant proportions."

    Agreed. This case belongs in the next issue of the New England Journal of Medicine.

    Doctors from around the world need to be informed of this case. It'll be the talk of the next AMA convention for sure.

    Sorry if I don't get too upset worrying about threads and comments about and from privilege rich girls.


    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 12, 2007 5:40 PM
    I meant "privileged rich girls."

    BTW: topless naked women make a bunch of sense for museum art, not a whole lot of sense for your "video" resume.

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 12, 2007 5:44 PM


    So because my father was a littel country attorney, *I'm a "priviledged rich girl".

    People who have done you no harm personally or politically aren't worth conveying basic dignity towards because they are rich?

    What sort of marxist crap is that?

    Why don't quit while you're merely being stupid.

    BTW, I don't remember a KKK picture or link. Was the link aimed at Olbermann's Nazi salute thing? Did you protest it? If so, did someone tell you they don't value the opinion of stupid people who happen to like cats?

    Olbermann never mentioned a single girlfriend in any interview he ever gave prior to 2006. Then the Karmabites story hit the fan and then when it was clear he'd suffered some damage to his "image", Olbermann pulled a girlfriend out of his ass, declared her his one true love and began to talk about her incessently on the radio show and in print interviews. Certainly convenient timing for him don't you think? And especially seeing how he was in the midst of renegotiating his contract with MSNBC at the time. I've never been able to figure out who was using who in this relationship but it's clear than a 22-year old girl (and she was 22 when they took up with one another, and it's a matter of PUBLIC RECORD that she dumped her boyfriend to pursue Olbermann) wouldn't be with a man older than her father unless it was for fame or money as Olbermann is hardly a Mel Gibson or even a Tom Hanks type. She states on her PUBLIC blog that she is looking to break into the industry. She invited comments on her videos. And what we're doing here is commenting on her videos. And if the conversation steers off into her "personal" life, than blame Olbermann, he was the one who chose to make his personal life public when he began yapping incessently about this young woman in every interview he could give.

    Olbermann has a long history of making fun of ALL women. Perhaps this is his, I don't know, KARMA for all of those names he's slung out at women both famous and not over the years. Maybe it will be a good lesson for him to know what it feels like to see someone you love and care about thrust into the public eye and made fun of as he has done to so many people and continues to do on a nightly basis. I'm sorry Cecelia, I feel no sympathy for Olbermann or his "girlfriend". And I find your whining about this to be more than a bit hypocritical.

    Perhaps technology will one day allow some big strong family men from the woman treated that way to jump through their monitor and beat the living crap out of them. Now that is a daydream that I could go for.

    Grammie


    Amen!

    And I agree with Grammie, he has his own reasons for bringing KT into this. I believe he thinks having a live-in gf makes him look normal after the fan-sex episode. Frankly, he would have been better off having a picture of the two of them of his choice with one of the many articles in which he made a reference to her. Then there would be no need to find others pics. Maybe he’d better get a better publicist.

    But at least the loons had something to do today, checking out all the pods at the Current TV site.

    Posted by: at May 12, 2007 6:28 PM


    With this sort of logic, sports players saying "hi, mom" on television, or Joe Scarborough telling funny stories about his parents makes those family members public figures and therefore suitable targets for anyone fan of a rival team or critic of Scarborough Country.

    Fame costs Ceceila and it costs not only the person pursuing it but those around them. I didn't make those rules, they just ARE. Olbermann has utilizied Tur for his own uses, both public and personal. She surely has no problem whatsoever in posting her videos and inviting comment on them on the CurrentTV website. Again tell me what the "crime" here is exactly. Methinks you doth protest a bit too much. And for allegations that I'm a mysognistic because you think I'm attacking ONE woman, well, I don't have a history of attacking ALL women like Olbermann does. You know better than that, but for whatever reason, you've decided to cast your lot in with the Olbyloons on this one. So be it. We just happen to disagree about what's fair game and what's not. I'd say that Cox has decided she is fair game and you're fighting a losing battle here.

    Fair enough. I should have stopped coming here when Cox posted the KKK thread & link. I did for a while. I was trying to justify the Katy postings in some way, but now I feel terrible for providing the updated link and finding it funny. I should know better. I consider myself a feminist for christs sakes.

    Thanks Grammie for providing clarification. I appreciate your clear headed comment. I guess my issues with "spolied rich kids" reared its ugly head. Sorry, I wish I could take the link back.

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 12, 2007 6:09 PM


    Well, you didn't post it on the site, but I wish you could take it back too. I have a daughter and I'm not going to play nice about things like that.

    As for leaving, I hope not, but that's something you have to decide for yourself.

    Cecelia, read my post @ 6:28 PM for the background.

    Grammie

    Brandon,

    What I've always wondered is why Cox has cast his lot in with you.

    Does the fact that Katy Tur is a person come into your mind at all or is she just some thing that Olbermann owns? Keith has talked about his mother MANY times. Why don't you go find a picture of her so we can ridicule it?

    People have professional sites in order for people to view their work, numbskull. They are inviting thoughtful attention and comments about it, not puerient interest and comments about how their talents must lie elsewhere ....leer...leer... based on some animus towards their love interest.


    Ceceila are you perhaps jealous that I was asked to blog here and you weren't?

    And why don't you ask Olbermann the next time he makes fun of someone if the fact that they are a person ever enters into his mind? You seem to forget that a primary mission of Olbermannwatch is to use the same exact tactics he uses on his newscasts.

    You know, I had no idea how big of a fan of his you truly were until today. What do you know-maybe some of the propaganda BS spewed here on a daily basis by Olbermann's deranged fan base HAVE managed to convert you.

    Brandon, I think you are missing the point from both Cecelia and me, even though we have some differences in the details.

    If you missed it read my post @ %:59 to Cats. I address the differences and commonalities.

    Grammie

    I'm sorry Cecelia, I feel no sympathy for Olbermann or his "girlfriend". And I find your whining about this to be more than a bit hypocritical.

    Posted by: KAF at May 12, 2007 7:21 PM


    I find justifying the mistreatment of one person via blaming another person a far more egregious action than hypocrisy, KAF.

    Ceceila are you perhaps jealous that I was asked to blog here and you weren't?

    And why don't you ask Olbermann the next time he makes fun of someone if the fact that they are a person ever enters into his mind? You seem to forget that a primary mission of Olbermannwatch is to use the same exact tactics he uses on his newscasts.

    You know, I had no idea how big of a fan of his you truly were until today. What do you know-maybe some of the propaganda BS spewed here on a daily basis by Olbermann's deranged fan base HAVE managed to convert you.

    Posted by: Brandon at May 12, 2007 7:46 PM


    Brandon, I was asked by Bob to blog here long before you came on the scene. Lest you think you're Einstein and Glenn Reynolds rolled into one, Bob has asked many people to do that.

    Please stop trying to justify your bad behavior by pointing at Olbermann's bad behavior. That might have worked with your mother or something, but anyone who didn't go through labor with you, ain't buying.

    I make no apologies for this blog entry or for the comments I've made within. If you don't like it, all I can say is that it's not my mission in life or on this board to make everyone happy with what I write. You've voiced your opinions and you're certainly entitled to them, I just don't happen to share them. Others do. That's the way the world turns and it would be very boring if it didn't.

    You know, I had no idea how big of a fan of his you truly were until today. What do you know-maybe some of the propaganda BS spewed here on a daily basis by Olbermann's deranged fan base HAVE managed to convert you.

    Posted by: Brandon at May 12, 2007 7:46 PM

    I tell you what the propaganda from Olbermann and his fan base hasn't done, Brandon. It hasn't made me able to justify doing something wrong merely because Olbermann has done it.

    You think about that, homeboy.

    Cecelia, you said that Tur had posted her videos on a "professional" website. No, that's a website for amateurs and it's very obvious from watching those videos she posted that she's very much an amateur.

    Let's see: Olbermann ridicules women and he is condemned for his, if not misogyny, then his sexist way of ridiculing them.

    So, because Olberman does something wrong, it's acceptable to do the SAME types of things he does.

    Only to other women.

    He ridicules Ann Coulter. That's wrong.

    We ridicule Katy Tur. That's okay.

    I'm not following the logic behind this.

    Because there isn't any.


    KAF, Brandon and any guys. it is not only a matter of Katy Tur being fair game for everyone to say something about her. It is also what is being said and what gutter language is being used to say it.

    I agree that KO and she herself have placed her in the public domain to a degree.

    But some are using that as a justification for the foulest comments couched in the foulest gutter terms. And that is a general trait that many women posters are subjected to on a daily basis.

    When I read some of the vileness that pollutes our public discourse I often wonder if these men say the same things to their Moms, Gramms, daughters and sisters. Or, if another man said to their female loved ones would if they would just shrug their shoulders and say c'est la vie.

    It is the excess that we are objecting to, not the benign comment about her or stronger comments about him.

    I am starting to think that this is a right brain left brain male female type of thing.

    Grammie

    Cecelia, you said that Tur had posted her videos on a "professional" website. No, that's a website for amateurs and it's very obvious from watching those videos she posted that she's very much an amateur.

    Posted by: KAF at May 12, 2007 8:00 PM

    Hellloo.... You act as though her work was posted here because this is a site on the art of video shorts!

    Like the reprehensible Ann Coulter is not fair game.

    You people really are idiots.

    I am starting to think that this is a right brain left brain male female type of thing.

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at May 12, 2007 8:05 PM

    I don't think so. It's a we have a brain, they don't, kind of thing.

    Well whopee for you and your high moral standards there Cecelia. Just don't hurt yourself patting yourself on the back now you hear?

    As I've said here once already and will say for the last time in this thread once again, I offer no apologies nor do I have a single bit of remorse or regret about posting the link to her CurrentTV page or about anything else I've said about her in this thread.

    Since Bob has left this blog entry up along with the similar one on Tur's photos up as well, I'm going to assume he has no problem with it either but I can't say for sure. I'm sure if he does, he'll let me know.

    There's obviously an interest in her, and how did her name ever surface to begin with? From Olbermann. But if you're going to blame me for that, so be it. I have as much control over what you say and blame me for as you do over what I post here. It's not my problem if you don't agree with something I've said in a comment or posted as a blog entry. Just don't expect me to apologize for what I've written and do not expect me to stop doing posts in the future on this subject or similar ones.

    There's obviously an interest in her, and how did her name ever surface to begin with? From Olbermann. But if you're going to blame me for that, so be it. I have as much control over what you say and blame me for as you do over what I post here. It's not my problem if you don't agree with something I've said in a comment or posted as a blog entry. Just don't expect me to apologize for what I've written and do not expect me to stop doing posts in the future on this subject or similar ones.

    Posted by: Brandon at May 12, 2007 8:11 PM


    Let me reasure you, Brandon. I have never for one minute expected you to act like anything but the clueless little punk that you are.

    "Like the reprehensible Ann Coulter is not fair game.

    You people really are idiots."

    It's perfectly fine for a news anchor to go Ann Coulter? How about Maureen Dowd? Or Nancy Pelosi?

    It's okay for news anchors to attack them too? Using sexist language? Ridiculing their looks?

    Knucklehead. You're just a complete knucklehead. Where people have their heads, you have a gigantic, bulbous (and growing) knuckle.

    Knuckle+head. Knucklehead.

    And I agree with Grammie, he has his own reasons for bringing KT into this. I believe he thinks having a live-in gf makes him look normal after the fan-sex episode. Frankly, he would have been better off having a picture of the two of them of his choice with one of the many articles in which he made a reference to her. Then there would be no need to find others pics. Maybe he’d better get a better publicist.

    But at least the loons had something to do today, checking out all the pods at the Current TV site.

    Posted by: at May 12, 2007 6:28 PM


    With this sort of logic, sports players saying "hi, mom" on television, or Joe Scarborough telling funny stories about his parents makes those family members public figures and therefore suitable targets for anyone fan of a rival team or critic of Scarborough Country.

    Cecelia, I have no idea what this response means in reference to this statement. anon 6:28 was pretty harmless, not nasty. It's natural to be curious about people. For example, last week Lou Dobbs was on 60 Min. His wife has nothing to do with his job but it was interesting to see her on the interview. It was in a situation he controlled. I'm sure Olbermann's fans were very interested in seeing a photo of KT. Since their relationship is not a secret he could have put one out there that he controlled. He's gotten a lot of press lately, articles that he's participated in with pictures and video, where he mentioned her over and over, so why not have a picture. These party links have been around the internet in various forums. There was even a link on OW last summer. And there were plenty of nasty remarks then, too. But I agree it's time to get past the gutter comments.

    Curious,

    I mention my feelings about pictures of Tur in my post at 4:42pm.

    It's perfectly fine for a news anchor to go Ann Coulter? How about Maureen Dowd? Or Nancy Pelosi?
    Posted by: Ohboy at May 12, 2007 8:17 PM

    Now Oh Boy is comparing these three women !
    Dowd is an award winning writer. Pelosi is a ground breaking first woman Speaker of the House( with a 56% approval rating)
    And Ann Coulter is a laughing stock who's been fired from every job she's ever had !

    Oh Boy, still shooting blanks !
    Oh My !


    Oh BOY , with not very much upstairs, is now calling someone a knucklehead !

    These RWer's just get sillier by the day !

    "Now Oh Boy is comparing these three women !"

    Oh, I get it. You're pretending to act like a fool. I was taking you seriously.

    A real fool wouldn't understand that news anchors aren't supposed to go after anyone personally. They aren't supposed to engage in ad hominem attacks against public figures no matter who that public figure is.

    Sexist remarks about a women's looks or her alleged sexual practices is, of course, not permitted by news anchors.

    It doesn't matter who that women is. Professional standards in journalism would prevent a news anchor from engaging in such tactics.

    Only a real fool wouldn't understand that.

    But since you're only pretending to be a fool, I erred in making this point.

    It's hard to distinguish between real fools and fake ones among the Olbermann apologists.


    Didn't Katy Tur put herself out there by publishing an article about why news anchors shouldn't be orange, not to mention stating that Korean newswomen should not be blond.

    Oh BOy sees his party falling apart, his president reaching Nixonian approval numbers,so he lashs out at KO.

    If it makes you feel like a big boy, Oh Boy, knock your socks off.
    Does it feel like your whole life is coming apart at the seams?
    You haven't seen anything yet !

    This simpleton is in for mnay more disappointments and anguish.

    And we'll be enjoying it, fool ! !

    We get it Cecelia. You're pissed at Brandon. You're pissed at Cox. You're pissed at the posting of the party photos. You're pissed at the links to Tur's videos and you're pissed at the comments made about Katy Tur. So why do you continue to read this thread? You're really beginning to come off as a humorless shrew and btw, that's not a female bashing statement because I'm a female myself.
    And that's another thing. You're complaining here about males "attacking" Tur but you don't seem above hurling out personal insults at those you disagree with. So it's okay for you to throw our insults and attack others but not for someone to make a snarky comment about Ms. Tur? I'm missing the logic there and I still think it makes you a Grade A Hypocrite to criticize someone for something when you turn around and do the same to those you disagree with.

    "Oh BOy sees his party falling apart, his president reaching Nixonian approval numbers,so he lashs out at KO."

    Good comeback.

    Right on point.

    Completely relevant to my post.

    Filled with facts and logical thinking. You sure took apart my point.

    Like I said: you have a giant bulbous knuckle on top of your neck where people have heads.

    Knuckle+head= knucklehead.

    "You're really beginning to come off as a humorless shrew"

    Best description I've ever heard depicting Cecilia yet !

    Right on, sista !

    KAF,

    Do you REALLY think the point I'm making is some generalized statement that people shouldn't insult one another?

    Goper, we are all waiting to learn from you which women in the public domain can be berated, degraded and tossed around like a sexual volleyball just because they are the wrong sort of women. Don't forget to include your list of sacrosanct icons that can only be approached on bended knee, head tilted downward with votive candles to lay at their feet.

    List one we know includes Ann Coulter.

    List two we know includes MoDo and Pelosi.

    Oh, and do let us know which list your mother, grandmother, sister, wife and/or daughter belong in.

    Grammie

    "Goper, we are all waiting to learn from you which women in the public domain can be berated, degraded and tossed "

    You've cornered him with that question.

    There's no anwer he can come up with that won't make him look like a complete fraud.

    But since he can't come up with an answer, he'll respond with: "What about Bin Laden?" or "Where's the WMD?" or "How about Bush's approval ratings?"

    Just wait.

    Cecelia, I stand corrected. I don't THINK you're a humorless shrew, now I know you are. You just don't seem to get that the second you began to use the same terms to throw at others that you were complaining about others using, you lost your argument here. You really do need to chill out on this subject. You're lost all perspective. It's pretty clear that Tur will continue to be a topic of discussion here, if you don't like it, you know what you can do and where you can go (elsewhere).

    And you know what? I'd really like a list of who it's okay to make fun of and who it's not, both male and female. There seems to be a real disagreement in that area. I say EVERYONE is fair game up to and including even old Cecelia.

    KAF, it depends a great on why and HOW.

    I am getting tired of saying the same thing in a new and innovative way. So, please read my post @ 9:10 PM. It is the most on point to your 9:25 PM post.

    Grammie

    I thought this website was run by Bob Cox, I didn't realize that a rules committee had been appointed. I must have missed that meeting.

    Cecelia, I stand corrected. I don't THINK you're a humorless shrew, now I know you are. You just don't seem to get that the second you began to use the same terms to throw at others that you were complaining about others using, you lost your argument here. You really do need to chill out on this subject. You're lost all perspective. It's pretty clear that Tur will continue to be a topic of discussion here, if you don't like it, you know what you can do and where you can go (elsewhere).

    And you know what? I'd really like a list of who it's okay to make fun of and who it's not, both male and female. There seems to be a real disagreement in that area. I say EVERYONE is fair game up to and including even old Cecelia.

    Posted by: KAF at May 12, 2007 9:25 PM


    KAF, when Katy Tur becomes a public figure for something other than being Olbemann's love interest or having been referenced by him as being his love interest... or if she starts posting here.... I'd say she's fair game-- just like me.

    Otherwise, I think lascivious and ridiculing comments about her are out of place, especially from someone doing an official OW thread, much as I think they would be about Olbermann's mother, sister, or any of your relatives who I just might want to insult simply on the basis of your putting yourself out here and exposing the family gene pool.

    You find that humorless and shrewish, fine. Your relatives might find my mindset comforting.

    For the record this statement is wrong"

    "Ceceila are you perhaps jealous that I was asked to blog here and you weren't?"

    Cecelia WAS asked by me to blog here and she declined.

    I am always interested in adding contributors with different points of view on all things Olbermann. As you all know I am especially interested in having some PRO-KO contributors and have had guest post from PRO-KO people and we now have one regular PRO-KO contributor on the masthead.

    As for posting images on Olbermann Watch found elsewhere on the web or linking to her work either as a writer, videographer or on-air talent...these images were ALREADY public.

    What made them relevant to Olbermann Watch is that Keith has talked about her on-air (many times) and in media interviews (many times).

    Add to this Keith's comments about Anderson Cooper in New York magazine and I do not see how it is possible to arrive at any other conclusion that it is perfectly logical to post publicly available photos, videos or articles from or of Katy Tur on this site as she is very much a part of Keith's public persona.

    It is my understanding that even Cecelia does not object to the posting of Katy Tur's image on Olbermann Watch. From what I gather, she objects to multiple images being posted. That seems to me a distinction without a difference. One photo or ten...what's the difference?

    As for any "crude" comments made about Katy Tur on this site, each person has to be accountable for their own words. This is a public space and ALL points of view are welcome provided they are not spam or do not significantly impinge on the speech of others. I do not like the crude comments myself. Does anyone think the types of comments made would be different if I had posted one photo or ten or a hundred?

    As for the photos themselves there is nothing particularly "bad" or "wrong" about the photos. They do not appear to have been taken surreptitiously. The owner of the photos did not copyright them or post any disclaimer. Quite frankly I do not understand why the photos, in and of themselves, are controversial.

    The commentary I posted with the photos are not an "attack" on Katy Tur or Keith Olbermann. In Brandon's case, she posted the videos specifically to have them watched and commented upon. It appears prima facie to be the case that she would want whatever attention or promotion for her videos she can get. That people on this site or on the currentTV site have criticized her is part of putting her work out for public viewing - and inviting comment from viewers.

    It is not my intent to "go after" her. As I already mentioned, we get a non-trivial number of searches hitting out site from people who are searching for information and/or images of Katy Tur. There is interest in her and she is putting herself out there. It's not Keith Olbermann who put her into the public domain. She has been in the public domain since at least 2005 when she began submitting articles to the UCSB student newspaper...more so when she submits video to currentTV with her as the on-air talent.

    Given all this, I am at a loss to understand why there are (currently) over 70 posts on this thread debating whether or not it is "fair" to post information, images, videos or links to/about her on this site since she is VERY PUBLICLY Keith Olbermann's significant other and they are both public people.

    As for the "crude" and/or misogynistic comments by some readers of this site. If you are asking for my vote I would vote for people not making those kinds of comments. Likewise I would like people to stop defending Keith Olbermann, stop trying to make every post a referendum on George Bush or Dick Cheney or the Iraq War. I would like people to always see my point of view, come to the same conclusions as me or admit when they are wrong.

    Guess what?

    That ain't happening. It's the nature of the kind of free and open discourse I want to encourage on this site.

    In conclusion, let me just note that we have not done posts about Keith's family or his friends when those people are not public people. We have also kept mentions of KarmaBites to an absolute minimum on this site - most discussion has been about why we DO NOT give her a lot of attention, the rest has been when the issue is made public in some significant way (e.g., Mark Levin, NY Post, etc.). In the case of KarmaBites that story is about a private matter and has no direct relation to what Keith says or does publicly. That might be different if Keith were doing special comments on the merits of celibacy or opposing pre-marital sex. That would be OlbyPocrisy and we would then cover it. If he had violated corporate policy at NBCUniversal that would be different. That has never turned out to be the case and so we have largely ignored that story.

    I am not really going to think very hard about whether this comment or my past statements are somehow in conflict with this. All I can tell you is that I do not see anything wrong with talking about Katy Tur on this site because she has chosen to be a public person and Keith Olbermann has chosen to push her even more into the spotlight.

    That alternative seems odd - that we should NOT mention Katy Tur on this site at all when she is very publicly in a relationship with the person who this site is all about.

    Thank you Bob for that clarification.

    Let me get this straight, Bob. A woman who talked with the NYP about her one night affair with Keith Olbermann (but declined to give proof) and who started a blog site on this very topic is NOT a public figure, but a Katy Tur is a public figure because she is mentioned by her famous lover and has showcased her video work on a website in order to attract professonal interest?

    As to your picture gallery, This isn't a Girls Gone Wild site or a blog about video shorts production. She and her work ONLY have interest to you because of Olbermann. I think you were well aware of the sort of comments those pictures would engender.

    Saying that they were already in the public domain just doesn't cut it. You've put pictures of your wife and children in the public domain too, but I'd call it the utmost level of crass for the Watching OlbermannWatch blog to do what you've done and I'd never for an instant excuse that on the basis that the site owner had voiced a wish that people didn't say 'those sorts of things'.

    I'm with Cecelia all the way!

    Forget Katy. Post more Karma pictures (wipes drool off chin)

    The difference is that Olbermann confirmed that he was living with Katy Tur and he's mentioned that he wants to marry her and have children with her. That's a pretty public declaration. And yes that made her a public person in addition to her own attempts to gain fame for herself through the website by posting her videos so she could land a job. I'm tired of arguing with you about this and I'm even more tired of your shrill posts on this subject. You obviously feel like you're right and everyone else is wrong and nothing anyone says is going to change your mind. Fine, we get it. So either accept that's the way it's going to be here or just avoid these topics altogether. Is that so difficult to do?

    Cecelia,

    Karma never talked to the Post, they lifted her words from her blog.

    Keith has never denied the story and Lloyd Grove admitted to having incriminating emails in his possession. What more proof do you want.

    What? Cecelia got her facts wrong? Imagine that.

    The difference is that Olbermann confirmed that he was living with Katy Tur and he's mentioned that he wants to marry her and have children with her. That's a pretty public declaration. And yes that made her a public person in addition to her own attempts to gain fame for herself through the website by posting her videos so she could land a job. I'm tired of arguing with you about this and I'm even more tired of your shrill posts on this subject. You obviously feel like you're right and everyone else is wrong and nothing anyone says is going to change your mind. Fine, we get it. So either accept that's the way it's going to be here or just avoid these topics altogether. Is that so difficult to do?

    Posted by: KAF at May 12, 2007 10:28 PM


    You don't have to respond to my comments either, girlfriend, and I'd rather be a humorless shrew than to think it's okay to expose someone to public ridicule simply because they were connected to a famous person and simply because they had the terimity to have a career.

    Hey, I'm a straight woman and I agree with Doug. Karma is hotter. I'm just an objective observer and not drooling like he is. lol

    However, I know the men I work with would find a certain enjoyment in the black bra photo.

    Keep up the public service by having the Katy pics, Bob, and give the fangirls what they want, a look at KO's woman. They're not googling "Katy Tur photo" so they can read Cecelia's musings.

    Cecelia,

    Karma never talked to the Post, they lifted her words from her blog.

    Keith has never denied the story and Lloyd Grove admitted to having incriminating emails in his possession. What more proof do you want.

    Posted by: Sandy at May 12, 2007 10:33 PM


    Tell it Bob. He's the one suggesting that Karma isn't blogged on here because she's part of Olbermann's PRIVATE life.

    Cecelia wrote " I think you were well aware of the sort of comments those pictures would engender."

    Actually, I was not "aware" of anything of the kind. I don't write posts or published photos or videos on this site with ANY thought to what comments may or may not be added to my post. Likewise I don't withhold information either.

    This may be a shock to you but there are far more people reading this site than commenting so while I welcome comments and engage in the comments section from time to time - and believe it is an important part of the overall Olbermann Watch experience - the commenters on the site are not the AUDIENCE. They are a very small part of a much larger audience.

    If you click the Sitemeter logo at the bottom of the left rail you will see that we had over 10,000 unique visitors this week. If you check Technorati and Google Blog Search you will see we have been widely linked by many other blogs including some with very large readerships. Toss in YouTube, our video appearing on CNN Headline News (three times) and all the links referencing Glenn Beck's commentary on Keith's Fort Dix comments, and I would guess our material has been read/viewed, directly or indirectly, by well over a million people just this week. The information being put out on Olbermann Watch is reaching a far wider audience than the relative handful of people who are commenting here.

    So, with no offense to you and other loyal and active commenters who are an integral part of the site, do the math and you perhaps you will understand that I have my horizon set out a little further than anticipating how a particular post will play among the regular commenters on this site. I don't mean that to sound as harsh as it may come across to some but that's the cold, hard reality.

    Cecelia, I think you could seriously benefit from a good glass of wine. And some serious chill time. And quite possibly some midol. The extra-strength kind.

    And if Ms. Tur is serious about pursing a career in journalism, perhaps she should stop trying to use short-cuts like dating someone famous and using her parents' connections to get a job (which she then abandons to move in with said news anchor). If she really wants to pursue a career as you suggest, she should enroll in graduate school, study her craft, and work for it instead of looking for shortcuts.

    So, with no offense to you and other loyal and active commenters who are an integral part of the site, do the math and you perhaps you will understand that I have my horizon set out a little further than anticipating how a particular post will play among the regular commenters on this site. I don't mean that to sound as harsh as it may come across to some but that's the cold, hard reality.

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 12, 2007 10:41 PM


    You did it for traffic. Even better.

    And if Ms. Tur is serious about pursing a career in journalism, perhaps she should stop trying to use short-cuts like dating someone famous and using her parents' connections to get a job (which she then abandons to move in with said news anchor). If she really wants to pursue a career as you suggest, she should enroll in graduate school, study her craft, and work for it instead of looking for shortcuts.

    Posted by: KAF at May 12, 2007 10:42 PM


    KAF, I'd expect Brandon to come up with something that essentially states --- the stupid whore deserves it-- I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that you would too.

    Cecelia I don't know what's wrong with you tonight but you're on quite the tangent. I think you're totally twisting what Bob was trying to say. He has tried to invite posters with different views and he has not put limits on what people could say in the comments and he's done so to promote this site and he's done that very successfully. And he's been very open and honest about that but you seem to think that's a bad thing because you don't happen to agree with him on this particular subject, you're, I don't know what you're trying to do but it's not making anyone look bad here but you. If that's your intention, congratulatons you've suceeded and then some. And I'm very serious about my career advice to Ms. Tur. People post videos at Current for the express purpose of getting comments and input on them and first and foremost to get them "greenlit" and put on tv. It's a shortcut. She states explicitly in her comments she's trying to get her foot in the door. She also states she doesn't possess a journalism degree. My advice to her is very serious. She should go back to school, earn a grad degree in journalism if that's what she wants to do, and work from the bottom up to achieve her goals and not take shortcuts. That's not the sexist slam that you seem to think it is, it's serious career advice. And I'd advise any woman to make their own way and not try to lean on their parents or their boyfriend to open doors for them or to think that someone is going to discover them like they were some Hollywood startlet from the 30's.

    "And if Ms. Tur is serious about pursing a career in journalism, perhaps she should stop trying to use short-cuts like dating someone famous and using her parents' connections to get a job (which she then abandons to move in with said news anchor). If she really wants to pursue a career as you suggest, she should enroll in graduate school, study her craft, and work for it instead of looking for shortcuts."

    I thought KAF gave some solid advice.
    Failure to prepare is preparing to fail - John Wooden.

    This is way off topic but I want to ask everyone's prayers (or at least concern) for three soldiers missing in the triangle of death of death in Baghdad in the same area where two soldiers were mutilated last year. It doesn't look good. There was an ambush on a patrol. Five were found dead and three unaccounted for.

    I watched the videos released last year by the terrorist group when the two soldiers were captured and piecing together the sequence, it was clear the soldiers were dead before the terrible butchering occurred. I expect videos will be released here. I hope to God I am wrong.

    I've been trying to find out all day if these soldiers were Army or Marines and what unit they came from. I have a relative, just 20 who is over there now for his second tour in Iraq. I pray for him and for his comrades every day. I agree that this does not look good for the captured soldiers.

    The Jawa Report does a good job of keeping up to date. I am just sick inside. This could be the turning point for me to say get our guys home now.

    That is me, Sharm (my nickname).

    The reason I found this site was because of what happened to Privates Menchaca and Tucker last year. After the soldiers' bodies were recovered, Olby barely mentioned it because it did not fit into his argument about the "poor" treatment of combatants at Gitmo. I was so angry about that and found OW. (I had watched Olbermann on occasion for entertainment purposes). I got so sick of hearing about the treatment of Gitmo prisoners who at least were alive and had their heads and other essential parts. Maybe some treatment was questionable but it was done to obtain information to protect our country. The treatment of our soldiers was done in the name of Islam. (if you have ever watched a Westener beheaded, as I have, you'll hear an 8 minute manifesto in Arabic with Islam mentioned over and over).

    When the trouble broke out in Lebanon last year, all news focused on that event. At the end of the week, Olby' replacement did a recap of news that wasn't covered. One event that had happened that week was the person behind the capture of our men got his just reward. That was never mentioned on the recap. (In fairness, most of the other news stations barely mentioned it).

    So I was angry, just as angry as Average American Patriot and some others here are. I saw Olby's hypocrisy on many levels and eventually got into discussion threads here on many topics but my initial reason for being here was anger at the suppression of news that didn't fit into an agenda. I read soldiers' comments like CJ who guested here and felt their motivation. Now to know three of our men are likely going through torment (or maybe already have) sickens me. I requested CJ to post something on his website and told him how disheartened I am.
    That is what al qaeda wants. I really don't want to give them that but it is going to be a terrible time, unless some miracle occurs. It is merely a waiting game for the videos.

    "Maybe some treatment was questionable but it was done to obtain information to protect our country. "
    says Sharm or is it Sharon..or is it Sharm or is it....

    Torture has been proven to not relinguish reliable information. All it does is force the victim to say, anything, to make them stop, rarely the truth.

    The Jawa Report does a good job of keeping up to date. I am just sick inside. This could be the turning point for me to say get our guys home now.
    Posted by: Sharon at May 12, 2007 11:53 PM

    This could be the first sincere, honest and intelligent statement ever coming from a right winger at this sight.

    Kudos to you, Sharon.

    Correct. Torture never helps to protect our country. All it does is give the USA another black eye in a long line of shiners that this administration has given us.

    Who's have we tortured? You freaks want to continue to kiss these terrorists ass and look what it gets us, missing soldiers. Leaflets then bombs, end of story.

    another (((((((swing )))))) and a miss by Jeff !

    Laughing my friggin ass off !

    Where's your list of torturees? Asswipe. Laugh all you want, loser.

    The Proof is in the Military's Own Autopsy Reports
    Death By Torture: US Media Ignores Hard Evidence

    By PETER PHILLIPS

    Military autopsy reports provide indisputable proof that detainees are being tortured to death while in US military custody. Yet the US corporate media are covering it with the seriousness of a garage sale for the local Baptist Church.
    Ther have been forty-four US military autopsy reports.Here's just a couple.

    "Final Autopsy Report: DOD 003164, (Detainee) Died as a result of asphyxia (lack of oxygen to the brain) due to strangulation as evidenced by the recently fractured hyoid bone in the neck and soft tissue hemorrhage extending downward to the level of the right thyroid cartilage. Autopsy revealed bone fracture, rib fractures, contusions in mid abdomen, back and buttocks extending to the left flank, abrasions, lateral buttocks. Contusions, back of legs and knees; abrasions on knees, left fingers and encircling to left wrist. Lacerations and superficial cuts, right 4th and 5th fingers. Also, blunt force injuries, predominately recent contusions (bruises) on the torso and lower extremities. Abrasions on left wrist are consistent with use of restraints. No evidence of defense injuries or natural disease. Manner of death is homicide. Whitehorse Detainment Facility, Nasiriyah, Iraq."

    The US Military further reveals how: "a 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was "undetermined" although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death.

    There are 42 other documented cases.

    Jeffrey...another (((((((swing))))) and a miss !

    The aclu, LMAO!

    Wow, what a thread tonight. (I just caught up). I am not internet savvy to say the least but I have seen the Farq website a few times and it is completely merciless. This site is much more genteel, even at its most raunchy. I had no idear KAF, that you are a girl.

    It seems rather noble of you, Cecelia, to defend Katie but useless. If you expect a high level of moral behavior here, look elsewhere. Save the Cats did a rare thing here: she waved the white flag, Cecelia! I have daughters, too (little ones). That is one of the reasons I homeschool! High school ain't much different than this thread with all the technology available now. Watch a little t.v. now and then (I rarely do except for the news and true crime stories). A good Lifetime channel movie about teens will clue you in, or any teen movie on the market. And Katie may be young but she is not a teenager.

    If you want to start a campaign, I'm behind you. In a society that Grammie noted with her reference to her first exposure to the "f" word, a woman wouldn't have been living with her boyfriend at all, let alone to further her career. If this thread would give Katie a career boost, she would probably tell YOU to shut the hell up! Is that right? In my mind, no. The fact that you seem so appalled is actually shocking, given your obvious savvyness. This is the kind of society that our girls now live in. I am extremely thankful that I had a change of heart before I had children or I would probably have added to the problem. You can tell your girls that guys have no right to look at you like a piece of meat if you choose to wear tight shirts and high cut skirts but don't expect the guys to think, "Gee that's a cute outfit. Did she get that at Bloomingdale's?"

    Royalking asks for proof of torture and gets it, from real autopsy reports and all he can do is laugh ?

    I think it;s time the little yellow Special Ed school bus come pick him up.

    Anon,

    These jihadists don't care whether or not the U.S. tortures. Three Christians were disemboweled and otherwise tortured while being taped by videophone in Turkey. The murderers feigned an interest in Christianity and agreed to attend a Bible meeting. It just gives them an excuse. They are going to kill the soldiers, not subject them to torture where they may or may not survive to obtain information. They will die a horrible death if they have been captured alive.

    *Torture has been proven to not relinguish reliable information. All it does is force the victim to say, anything, to make them stop, rarely the truth.

    Some agree with you, some don't. But there is a purpose to the interrogation. Whether the techniques meet that objective can be argued all day. You can even argue that the type of people used to interrogate are chosen for their abnormal personalities (don't get bothered by the idea of making someone uncomfortable, even hurt). But our soldiers will die. There will be a trial and then execution.

    Even if I ultimately decide that I cannot support the surge, it is not for hatred of Bush but concern for the members of the military. And I agree with Cee: either the Dems have to cut off funding or support the surge. It can't be somewhere in the middle.

    The US Military further reveals how: "a 27-year-old Iraqi male died while being interrogated by Navy Seals on April 5, 2004, in Mosul, Iraq. During his confinement he was hooded, flex-cuffed, sleep deprived and subjected to hot and cold environmental conditions, including the use of cold water on his body and hood. The exact cause of death was "undetermined" although the autopsy stated that hypothermia may have contributed to his death.

    There are 42 other documented cases.

    Jeffrey...another (((((((swing))))) and a miss !

    Posted by: at May 13, 2007 1:55 AM
    More evidence of a liberal defending the enemy, pathetic. 3000 dead Americans and this idiot is worried about one being too warm or too cold. Do any of these autopsy reports say anything about slashed throats? That's what I thought.

    *We know for sure that they will be found--they have set up checkpoints and have made some progress. They have also arrested a man who was involved in the attack...so we may know their fate soon.

    This from a commenter over at the Jawa Report. Let's hope it is true.

    My moral struggle, RK is that I agree with you and know I shouldn't. I can't bring myself to care about Gitmo when I think of our soldiers. Yet Pope Benedict (as well as the late Pope John Paul II) have spoken out against any form of torture. It is a big struggle I have. The same if one of my children were kidnapped, molested and/or killed.

    ABout Gitmo or any other reference above (I should say)

    If you want to start a campaign, I'm behind you. In a society that Grammie noted with her reference to her first exposure to the "f" word, a woman wouldn't have been living with her boyfriend at all, let alone to further her career. If this thread would give Katie a career boost, she would probably tell YOU to shut the hell up! Is that right? In my mind, no. The fact that you seem so appalled is actually shocking, given your obvious savvyness. This is the kind of society that our girls now live in. I am extremely thankful that I had a change of heart before I had children or I would probably have added to the problem. You can tell your girls that guys have no right to look at you like a piece of meat if you choose to wear tight shirts and high cut skirts but don't expect the guys to think, "Gee that's a cute outfit. Did she get that at Bloomingdale's?"

    Posted by: Sharon at May 13, 2007 2:21 AM


    First of all, Sharon, I don't find it all surprising that people make smutty comments about women, no woman in the world finds that surprising. It's especially not surprising in a medium where they can do it anonymously.

    I'm am absolutely for certain that Bob was not surprised either. It's not a good enough reason to highlight Tur simply because she is connected with Olbermann and is able to generate interest because of that. That is why I would not have published a gallery of Katy partying in college pictures in the first place, so we could have boardload of cretins making jokes about her.

    Brandon went so far as to make an official blog thread about her professional work. In doing that he tossed out a nasty insinuation about her, not in the comments section but within the blog material.

    I don't care what sort of parties Katy went to in college, we are adults here. We have made mistakes, we have kids who have made them or who might make them in the future. Making a spectacle out of Tur and egging on the worst sort of attention, simply because she is Olbermann's love interest (and that's the bottom line) and generates interest was the WRONG thing to do. Period.

    I have respect for you, Sharon, and for Bob too, so I do consider everything you say carefully. However, I do want to tell you that it is the height of sexist assumptions to automatically conclude that Tur is only with KO in order to advance her career. That she has no real feelings for him, doesn't admire his obvious talents, and therefore she is the sort of person one does not have to treat considerably or respectfully.

    That's not just sexist, Sharon, it's damn uncharitable.

    Yes Cecelia, so many 22-year old women find 48-year old men absolutely desirable and can't keep their hands off of them. It's why you see just so very much of that sort of thing in society today. I know that every single one of my friends is hooked up with a guy 26 years older than they are. And I just can't keep my hands off of men in their 50's myself. And that KO: he's such a sex symbol! I don't know about you, but there's just nothing I find more attractive than a glasses-wearing, gray-headed, rolls of fat coming over his belt man myself. Yes, I'm so very sure that Tur is with him just because she finds him to be a real hunk of burning love and this his fame and money have absolutely zero to do with it. Tell me Cecelia do you actually believe the crap you're spewing on this subject or are you so desperate to prove your point, whatever it is, that you lost all perspective on this subject? I'm still trying to figure out how you reconcile your comments about Karmabites last night with your fierce protection of Tur. Or are you insuiniting that one woman is better than another and deserves more protection than another? That isn't sexist and what's worse, elitist? Sorry but if we want to talk about the height of sexist assumptions, I think you made a huge one last night where Karmabites was concerned since apparently you don't seem to think she should be treated "considerably or respectfully". And sorry Cecelia, that IS sexist and it is "damn uncharitable". And since you've apparently set yourself up here as the guru of all things sexist and charitable, I thought you of all people would see your that but I guess not. Can't really see much with that stick in your eye (or is it just up your butt)?

    I agree with you in that I should not have assumed her reasons for being with Olbermann were self-serving, although you are not really being fair (and even being a little melodramatic) in implying that I am engaging in the height off sexism. I think Howard K. Smith, whose only client was Anna Nicole, used her. I guess I should apologize to him. My assumption had nothing to do with sexism. Uncharitable I would agree with and I apologize to Katy Turic for the assumption (and to Howard K. Smith). I never defended Brandon's remarks. Not having a leaning toward lesbianism, I don't have an interest in viewing any video footage, pics, etc about Katy Turic. Why did Imus get fired? The bottom line. Why did Bob start the thread? Traffic. I guess I see the issue as part of the larger picture: this world sucks. Although the crude responses are unfair, uncharitable, wrong, and sinful, Katy allowed herself to be treated this way by putting herself in the public eye in the manner she did. I go back to my analogy about clothing.

    So every woman who looked at photos or videos of Katy is a lesbian? Has everyone completely lost their minds in this thread or what?

    But I want to send a big thank you shout out to Cecelia who has been a great help in getting me my first thread ever with over 100 posts in it. Thanks Cecelia!

    I guess to clarify, it depends on what kind of videos and pics. I haven't really had the desire to look. I check the Jawa Report all the time and it sometimes will post something risque with a Victoria's Secret model type of thing. Why would I care? I guess it is more of a disinterest rather than an aversion.

    Another point, Brandon. If someone posted some pictures of a controversial woman's young boyfriend partying in college, would you seek out the pictures? Tell your guy friends to check out the pictures of Bill, Sam, ... ?If you see something because it is unavoidable or like here, you check OW and there is a picture plastered at the top of the screen and you look out of curiosity, I find that different than seeking out the material.

    I don't think looking at pictures of another woman makes you a lesbian.

    I said seeking out. You are avoiding the point.

    No, I'm not avoiding the point, I'm just pointing out that your point makes no sense. Looking at photos or videos of other women does not make you a lesbian any more than looking at videos or photos of males make you a gay male. If you're seeking out porn of the same sex, then yes, perhaps you might have some issues in that direction but these were all harmless non-sexual (unless you consider dancing sexual) photos and videos.

    It's not hard avoiding the point, Brandon. Just look at the pointy tip of your head.

    I said it depends on context. I look at pictures of family, friends. I don't have any interest in seeking out pictures of girls partying in college. Maybe you would want to seek out pictures of guys partying, because the guy is controversial? I doubt my husband would have that kind of interest in looking at another guy partying, even if he were the mate of a controversial figure.

    I actually don't think most women looking at the pictures are lesbians either, in the context I described.

    I know the mentality. My girl not only doesn't mind me looking at Playboy, she looks at it too! The same is not true in reverse and you know it.

    Even in a milder case, a guy does not look at other guys partying and dancing. Girls really don't want to look at other girls partying and dancing. They pretend to not care because that is how much they have been degraded.

    So that makes someone a lesbian how exactly?

    A woman who SEEKS OUT looking at other women because she actually wants to. This all started because I stated I had no interest in seeking out pictures of Katy Turic dancing. What would be my purpose to look at pictures of Katy Turic dancing? I believe you when you say there are pictures. The point was made. I have no desire to look at Katy Turic! I don't have tendencies that make me want to look at Katy dancing. There doesn't seem to be any reason for women to seek out looking at other women dancing in that scenario. (Unless they want to degrade because they have developed that mindset). Your reason for looking at college girls dancing is what?

    Your reason for looking at college girls dancing is what?

    Posted by: Sharm at May 13, 2007 12:25 PM

    You read Playboy, why? P.S. Happy Mothers Day, Sharon.

    KAF,

    You're suggesting that a young woman can't admire an established man's drive, success and talent, to the point of falling in love with hiim-- for this and for other reasons-- because he has gray hair and love handles?

    Let me clue you into something, although we aren't living in the Trump Tower, to say the least.... I fell in love with my husband partly for the same reasons, and I have admired his zeal and god given abilities more every year of our marriage. Gold-digger that I am, I even took advantage of them by letting him support me through my last year and a half of college. I've exploited him even more by largely living off his income, even though I could support myself and were I start start a business, I wouldn't fail to exploit every connection he has... I even think his love handles are cute...

    The fact that you're shallow and cynical enough to believe that it's impossible for a woman to love a man for all his personality, including his talents and skills, benefit from those traits in both a psychological and physical way, in no way persuades me to attribute that sort of cynicism to anyone else.

    *Not having a leaning toward lesbianism, I don't have an interest in viewing any video footage, pics, etc about Katy Turic.

    (me)

    Let me revise the comment to read:
    not having a leaning toward lesbianism or degrading women ...

    That is all I have to say about it.


    But I want to send a big thank you shout out to Cecelia who has been a great help in getting me my first thread ever with over 100 posts in it. Thanks Cecelia!

    Posted by: Brandon at May 13, 2007 10:32 AM


    You're quite welcome, Brandon. I'll be glad to load up the board with comments about what a clueless punk you are on all of the other threads you start too.

    However, I've said my last on this topic, Bran.

    I await your next.

    KAF " I think you made a huge one last night where Karmabites was concerned since apparently you don't seem to think she should be treated "considerably or respectfully".

    I have to answer this idiocy before I stop:

    Bob brought Karma up, KAF not me. He brought her up in the context of trying to make a point that he does try to respect Olbermanns nonprofessional life when it does not portray some sort of hypocrisy or when the other people are not public figures. He then made the point that he did not consider Karma a public personality--- through she HAS gone public and contrasted that to why he does consider Tur public.

    I wasn't advocating mistreatment towards Karma, einstein. I rebutting Bob's logic that Tur is a LESS a private figure than Karma (who has made public accusations against Olbermann!) and therefore fair game.

    Cecelia wrote "Let me get this straight, Bob. A woman who talked with the NYP about her one night affair with Keith Olbermann (but declined to give proof) and who started a blog site on this very topic is NOT a public figure, but a Katy Tur is a public figure because she is mentioned by her famous lover and has showcased her video work on a website in order to attract professonal interest?"

    If you back and read more carefully, I did NOT say that KarmaBites was NOT a public figure. Of course, she IS a public figure. What I said was...

    "[karmabites] is about a private matter and has no direct relation to what Keith says or does publicly. That might be different if Keith were doing special comments on the merits of celibacy or opposing pre-marital sex. That would be OlbyPocrisy and we would then cover it. If he had violated corporate policy at NBCUniversal that would be different. That has never turned out to be the case and so we have largely ignored that story."

    When the woman who later called herself "KarmaBites1" on her blog first approached me with her story I told her that unless there was some newsworthy angle to her account then all she had was a "story" that she had hooked up with Keith Olbermann. In other words, single man has consensual sex with single woman. That hardly struck me as "news" and therefore I declined to run with her story. I did tell her if there was some specific "news" angle - for example that Keith had violated corporate policy or committed some terrible journalistic sin - that she would need to meet with me and document her claims. She did tell me about some things that happened that WOULD certainly violate corporate policy and could well result in serious problems for KO but she was unwilling to provide documentation. I was not willing to take her word for anything. It just so happened I was schedule to be in Florida at taht time and offered to meet with her in person. She declined. I asked her to call me on the telephone. She declined. Without any particular angle to her story and her unwillingness to back up her claims I concluded that it was a private matter FOR KEITH OLBERMANN and not something I wanted to spend time on with this site. You will have to ask Lloyd Grove or Richard Johnson why they ran with her story. In Lloyd's case, she apparently provided him copies of the emails she told me about but was unwilling to make available to me.

    So, yes she did put herself out there and make herself a public person so there would be no reason for OW not to "cover" her. However, it was my judgment at the time that with no facts in evidence and no "public" issue at stake there was no good reason for me to run with her story. Realize that we only communicated via email and not only did I not know whether her story was true I did not whether she was a woman or even existed. For all I know it was some kind of hoax.

    I am sure the OlbyLoons will find it hard to reconcile my decision in the KarmaBites matter with the fact that I run Olbermann Watch but for me kb1 was a line that even I was not willing to cross.

    Bottom line....KarmaBites1 and Katy Tur are not just "apples and oranges" they are more like "apples and seaweed".

    Can being mentioned on the net turn an ordinary citizen into a public figure with severely limited abilities to fight libel and defamation lawsuits? According to a Florida judge's ruling -- perhaps the first of its kind in the United States -- the answer is yes.

    Just from a quick google. I haven't read the context.

    Tur put her videos out there on CurrentTV to invite commentary on them. I certainly provided commentary on them for her here as did others in this thread. She's also published articles in her college newspaper. That is putting herself out there and making herself public. How can I have exploited someone who was already very willing to be exploited and is seeking fame for herself and explicitly stated so in her comments at CurrentTV? If anything, she should be grateful for the link here at Owatch where her work, such as it is, will no doubt be seen by a much bigger audience than it would be at Current.

    And Cecelia? I'll be more than happy to post in every thread you do to let the world know exactly who and what you are too. Not that it's not painfully obvious from your posts. But again thanks for pushing this thread over the 100 post mark and for promising to do the same in any other blog post I might happen to make.

    Royal,

    Just saw the above. I don't read it but I did see it in the past. I was of that mindset I talked about. Hey, my boyfriend can read Playboy! Cool with me! It made me a modern woman. I was actually uncomfortable about it then and have no interest now. I didn't even then and never sought it out. (My boyfriend is now my husband and we both have moved in a better direction.)

    Thanks for the Happy Mothers' Day.

    Sharm,

    You are correct in one regard. Someone who puts themselves forward publicly online - as a writer, blogger, commenter, through posting images or video - makes themselves a public figure and they do lose certain rights such as control over their words and images of them used in a news context (the reason paparazzi can take a photo of Paris Hilton and sell it whether she likes it or not and without giving her money from the sale of her likeness). Some protections that exist for private individuals are diminished when the person becomes a public figure such as defamation. Read Times v. Sullivan or watch the movie Absence of Malice with Paul Newman and Sally Field for more on this. The Florida case would most likely be based on precedent in th eSullivan case but please send me a link to more on that.

    Cecelia,

    You've said twice now something that is untrue. KarmaBites1 is, by any definition, a public figure and I've never said otherwise. You are getting yourself in such a tizzy over this that you are not READING replies. Take a deep breath and read a little more carefully before commenting further.

    You also wrote "This isn't a Girls Gone Wild site".

    From what I have seen on Countdown with Keith Olbermann, GGW distributes video of young drunk women on Spring Break "flashing" their breasts. You are really reaching in making this comparison.

    "You did it for traffic. Even better."

    You seem to be under the delusion that we've done the equivalent of posting naked picture of Paris Hilton in a cheap publicity stunt. While God knows I am certainly not above cheap publicity stunts, you seem to have lost all sense of proportion. In fact, I would say you have crossed the line into becoming self-parodying here.

    In case you are not aware of the niche which Olbermann Watch has carved out we are the "go to" site for all things Keith Olbermann. We try and be as comprehensive as possible in posting information about Keith Olbermann. I have a news for you (and this information is publicly available via sitemeter) our posts about Olbermann's Fort Dix comments dwarf the traffic for my Katy Tur posts.

    However there IS interest. I've said that there are plenty of Google Searches for "Katy Tur" and "Katy Tur photos" hitting out site. I did not say that everyone coming to OW was searching for photos of her. As a percentage it is a small number but it is consistent over time and therefore something I want to post about because I want to "own" that keyword search on Google. I could write 5,000 words on my marketing strategy for Olbermann Watch but suffice to say since we relaunched the site I've been making a genuine effort to take a considered approach to marketing the site. I've already written about this on the site so it is hardly a big secret but FYI, I've never tried to market OW before.

    It's why we reformatted the site, why we decreased the use of the word "olby" and instead more often use "Keith Olbermann", why the title of the site was changed in the HTML code, why we have that big headline at the top that says "Know something about Keith Olbermann?", why we added the little social networking bookmarklets at the bottom of every post, why we've done blogger outreach, why we sent out a weekly alert email to bloggers and other OW fans, etc. This is all part of an SEO and SNO strategy for the site.

    One aspect of that was doing research on the most popular keyword combinations used to search for information about Keith Olbermann. Here is a list from Jan 2007:

    ====================

    11396 keith olbermann
    2374 countdown with keith olbermann
    708 keith olbermann fired
    323 keith olbermann msnbc
    159 fired keith msnbc olbermann
    133 keith olbermann rating
    121 keith olbermann bio
    119 bill keith olbermann oreilly
    104 comment keith olbermann special
    91 countdown keith olbermann w
    68 keith olbermann blog
    66 countdown with keith olbermann on msnbc
    64 keith olbermann dating girlfriend
    61 countdown host keith olbermann
    54 biography of keith olbermann
    52 keith olbermann girlfriend
    52 keith olbermann sacrifice
    50 keith olbermann wikipedia
    42 keith olbermann suck
    40 comment keith olbermann say special this
    38 comment keith olbermann
    38 is keith olbermann gay
    36 keith olbermann show
    28 countdown with keith olbermann and rating
    28 keith olbermann video
    27 married with keith olbermann
    26 keith olbermann jewish
    25 geraldo keith olbermann rivera
    25 host keith olbermann talks
    25 keith msnbc olbermann rating

    ===================

    We look at lists like this and make sure that our site content and meta tag information is consistent with how people are looking for information about Keith Olbermann.

    It's why our headlines mostly use the word "Keith Olbemann" now. It's why I wrote a post with the word "Keith Olbermann Fired" in it. At some point I will write posts with the words "Keith Olbermann Jewish" and "Keith Olbermann Gay" (no and no).

    As you can see, we've got the other keywords covered except for "Keith Olbermann girlfriend".

    BTW, Katy Tur shows up in just two phrases

    ================

    56 katy tur
    29 katy msnbc tur

    ==================

    So, in one regard a post about Keith Olbermann's girlfriend is about traffic but the way in which you mean.

    Bob,

    Below is the link to the article:

    http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2005/11/69511

    I did some follow up and the latest I could find is that the decision was upheld on appeal. Attorneys' fees were even granted to the appellee for a frivolous appeal. (the decision had not been made final because the appellant was given a chance to appeal the order for the award of fees.) If I had access to Westlaw, I could get more.

    Maybe I am cynical but I can tell you that I don't have a single friend who is married to or involved with a guy who is more than 10 years older than she is. Olbermann is older than this girl's father. And I think that any man who has limited physical appeal and is wealthy and well-known has to know that their ability to land good looking much younger women is due pretty much to their wealth and fame, not their physical appearane. Add to that the rumors about olbermann's lack of sexual agility and I'd say that this isn't exactly a love match unless this girl is in love with his money and his fame, such as it is. Just a hunch.

    Even the Olbyloons don't believe this affair is true love for Olbermann and Tur. They've gotten into such hot debates on the subject that the moderator at one of their forums has locked numerous threads on the subject. I'm beginning to think that Cecelia is related to Ms. Tur or something.

    I don't think Olbermann even believes he's charmed the twenty-something:

    Conversation between Dan Patrick and Keith Olbermann, The Big Show Feb 14, 2007

    Dan: Yeah, but also…you're high profile now. You're not just doing sports. You're saving the world. You're taking on the presidency. And then you meet a young impressionable girl from California who says 'I think I love you' and then you say 'who's your daddy?' and then she moves in with you. That''s pretty much how it happened, right???KO: She'd love me even if I didn't have my own show?
    Dan: Are you kidding me?

    KO: until she found out I didn't have my own show
    (laughter from both)

    GOP patriots: Concerned with Olby's girlfriend and who's posting under what name !

    They know they've lost the public discord on all the issues, so this is what they talk about.

    sometimes it's good to take a day off, leave the issues behind for awhile and just talk silliness - try it

    Imagine that, talking about Keith Olbermann on a board called Olbermannwatch.

    There is an unconfirmed rumor that the three soldiers have been captured by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI).

    What the hell was Pakistan's intelligence agency doing in Iraq and why do they have our servicemen?

    "There is an unconfirmed rumor that the three soldiers have been captured by Pakistan’s intelligence agency, the Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI)."

    Yeah, right.

    And it's an "unconfirmed rumor" too.

    And exactly how the hell does one confirm a rumor?

    "They know they've lost the public discord on all the issues,"

    What the hell is the "public discord".

    Public discord?

    Geez, I was kidding when I said you were a knucklehead.

    But, y'know, I'm not really sure right now.

    Public discord?

    Dictionary:
    discord, N
    a. Lack of agreement among persons, groups or things
    b. Tension or strife resulting from a lack of agreement; dissension.

    So, the Republicans have lost the public's lack of agreement?

    Like I said: knuckle+head = knucklehead.


    What is your point Ohboy? When there is evidence, proof. I am just relaying some information to some people here who were on late last night.

    Brandon,

    I told you that I check over at the Jawa Report. This is what I found with a quick check.

    http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:Cz4X1MtYAfMJ:www.cfr.org/publication/11644/+ISI+terror+group&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    Sorry, that wasn't clear. A person named Howie who posts over at Jawa said that there is no proof right now of the claim. I googled and found this but didn't get a chance to read it over. Howie is a regular at Jawa.

    "What is your point Ohboy? "

    You stated that there's an "unconfirmed rumor".

    First: There's no such thing as an unconfirmed rumor.

    A rumor by its very definition means unconfirmed or uncorroborated.

    Did you mean an "unconfirmed report"?

    An unconfirmed rumor from someone posting on the internet is completely and totally meaningless. Especially since they provide no link as to the source of the "unconfirmed rumor."

    Think about it: The internet. A rumor. And an "unconfirmed" rumor. Three strikes.

    To be blunt, you could have left a blank post and it would have had more credibility.

    IOW, any sensible person would disregard it.

    Shut the hell up. Go over to the Jawa Report. There is a story about the capture. There is a comment section. Howie made the comment (he didn't say unconfirmed but there is no proof- read it yourself.) If you read the Jawa Report, you would know that Howie posts there. I gave the information to people who were interested in the thread of last night. Just disregard it if you want. The Jawa was on top of the story of the capture of the two privates last year. They were one of the few sources of the videos released of our captured men.

    Not they were the source but it, the Jawa Report I meant.

    "Shut the hell up."

    No, I don't think so.

    When someone posts a crank post at a site, I'll call it a crank post.

    It was a crank post that you made.

    There is no evidence that the ISI has been operating in Iraq. The rogue elements in the agency operate in Afghanistan and Pakistan and India.

    Your post made no sense, had no substance behind it.

    If you can't take people pointing out the silliness of your posts, then don't post silly posts.

    Can't you read? Go and look at the site yourself. When the story broke last year of the capture of the two men, the Jawa report had links to the terror website that made the original claim (later the terrorists claimed the killings were done in retaliation for alleged actions of the 82 Airborne; the rape of a girl and her murder as well as members of her family.) The original claim by the terror organization made no such mention. I made a poor choice of words by unconfirmed rumor. My comment was made to some people here who were just as concerned as I was about the capture of the soldiers. I was updating any information. I gave the source and you can look at it and decide for yourself. I also said that I googled ISI and gave a site for background. The story may be totally false. That is why it was posted only as a comment by Howie.

    Sharm:
    "When someone posts a crank post at a site, I'll call it a crank post."

    Let me be clear: I wasn't alleging that YOU made the story up. I'm sure that you were repeating something you read.

    I was mocking the source for your post.

    Although, admittedly, I was also tweaking you for passing something as far-fetched as this.

    I apologize if I came across as accusing you of posting something false. You were just relaying a "rumor." I never thought that YOU made it up.

    "Can't you read? Go and look at the site yourself."

    Again, I wasn't accusing YOU of making this up. If you thought I did or if I came across as such, I apologize.

    I'm ridiculing the source. Not you.

    I gave the source Ohboy. I gave some background on the Jawa Report. It has been a credible source. I made it clear that it was merely a comment, not a post. Howie's tone was very clear about no proof. I also said that I didn't read the background of ISI. I looked at a couple of articles; one did mention the ISI in connection with Iraq. Information about ISI seemed kind of sketchy.

    Sharm:
    "I gave the source Ohboy. I gave some background on the Jawa Report. It has been a credible source. I made it clear that it was merely a comment, not a post. Howie's tone was very clear about no proof. "

    Yes, but you gave all of this information AFTER your initial post.

    Your initial post was simply that there was an "unconfirmed rumor" that ISI had captured the US soldiers.

    No source. No details.

    I was responding to your first post which, to be frank, seemed pretty far fetched (not you, the source's claims).

    As you know, there are all kinds of rumors floating at internet sites. Some are more credible (the sites) than others. And some rumors are more possible than others.

    This one is pretty hard to conceive as possible.

    Again, I was mocking your source. Not you.

    Why are you ridiculing the source? Have you actually looked at it? Let me quote the comment:

    A claim has been made that the soldiers are captured by ISI. Keep in kind it's just a "claim" at this point. No proof.

    Posted by: Howie at May 13, 2007 05:27 PM

    When I first made my comment, I realized I wasn't clear and corrected myself. I gave the source. If you look at the contact information on the home page of the Jawa Report, you can get his e-mail.

    "When I first made my comment, I realized I wasn't clear and corrected myself. I gave the source."

    Okay. An honest mistake on both of our parts.

    I misunderstood your first post and from there all hell broke loose.

    Sound and fury signifying nothing.

    If you know anything about my comments, you would know that I document. You would also know that I have a young family and sometimes my train of thought gets interrupted or I have to attend to something. If something was unclear, I come back and try to clarify. If you go back to the wee hours of this morning and read, you would know the reason why I wanted to give any sort of possible update.

    "If you know anything about my comments, you would know that I document"

    Sorry, I'm not familiar with your previous comments.

    Anyway, we've spent 30 minutes confusing each other.

    How do we get our time back?

    I reacted the way I did because of how I feel about the horror of the capture. That would have been clear to those who were online last night. Often, people catch up late in the day. I am often a late night commenter. I was able to sneak away for a bit but had another interruption before I could clarify. I don't think you would call the Jawa Report an incredible source if you were familiar with it. It is very opinionated but a good source of what is happeneing. If someone makes a mistake, there is a retraction. Again, this person Howie wrote a comment that would not have been seen by anyone unless you get into the comments. It wasn't posted as a main story, nor would it have been without some kind of proof.

    I guess the time is lost. Maybe you were looking for a fight? That often happens here. No matter what has happened to those soldiers, it can't be good.

    Ohboy,

    FYI: this is the blurb I picked up about an ISI Iraq connection. It may mean nothing for the recent capture.

    NEW DELHI – Indian officials pointed a warning finger at Pakistan this weekend, saying that Pakistan's top intelligence agency masterminded and funded July's train bombings in Mumbai (Bombay).

    The accusations continue the neighboring countries' decades-long pattern of blame and denial. This time, however, other nations are joining the chorus.
    (Photograph)
    MAKING HIS CASE: Foreign Secretary Shiv Shankar Menon says he will share the evidence with Pakistan.
    AP

    Last week, a think tank in Britain's Defence Ministry released an incendiary report saying that Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) agency "has been supporting terrorism and extremism, whether in London ... or in Afghanistan or Iraq."

    http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:uUtl9Hj7NJMJ:www.csmonitor.com/2006/1002/p01s04-wosc.html+ISI+terror+group+iraq&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&client=firefox-a

    "Maybe you were looking for a fight?"

    No, I was being sarcastic. There's lots of, frankly, garbage posted on the internet and I was in my snarky mood.

    Which I do too often of and is something I need to stop doing.

    As you said, the most important point in this is to get those soldiers back.

    If al-Qaeda's got them, well, I fear the worst. If it's some Iraqi Sunni insurgents, maybe they won't be killed or harmed seriously.

    That we haven't heard anything by now is, I think, a good sign. Al-qaeda would have killed them immediately and posted evidence.

    If it's someone else, perhaps they're trying to make contact. Hide the soldiers first, and then start negotiations.

    Just pray.

    Actually, I have little hope. Last year when the soldier's were missing, they weren't found for a couple of days. Then someone reported where they were but the road as well as the bodies were booby-trapped and it took hours to retrieve them. This is the last time I will mention the Jawa Report. Someone at the site scans the terror sites so I will check periodically for any legitimate news. Enough said. Pray is right.

    Actually, I have little hope. Last year when the soldiers were missing, they weren't found for a couple of days. Then someone reported where they were but the road as well as the bodies were booby-trapped and it took hours to retrieve them. This is the last time I will mention the Jawa Report. Someone at the site scans the terror sites so I will check periodically for any legitimate news. Enough said. Pray is right.

    One thing is for sure, if the soldiers worked for cnn, they would return with big smiles on their faces like the last one that was 'kidnapped.'

    Bob,

    Below is the link to the article:

    http://www.wired.com/politics/law/news/2005/11/69511

    I did some follow up and the latest I could find is that the decision was upheld on appeal. Attorneys' fees were even granted to the appellee for a frivolous appeal. (the decision had not been made final because the appellant was given a chance to appeal the order for the award of fees.) If I had access to Westlaw, I could get more.

    Posted by: Sharm at May 13, 2007 2:12 PM


    Sharon, KAF, Brandon, Ohboy,

    According to the law that Bob emailed me, Tur would qualify legally as a "limited public" figure, so there would be no legal ramifications for unnecessarily exposing her to the worst of the worst here.

    It's a truism that we can't make law or a legal system that informs all judgement and behavior.

    It takes something less prosaic for that.

    I was curious about the state of the law in that regard because it is a relatively new aspect of libel/slander. I sent him what the internet provides. Legal research (using Westlaw) may show that the law has gone in a different direction elsewhere. I sent it to him not in approval. It is legal to burn the American flag but you won't see me doing that. And I certainly don't support abortion.

    Also, I thought the"runaway bride" someone mentioned was a good example of a person who never intended to be a public figure. Because there was a lull in current events, the news organizations "ranaway" with a story that would likely never have received that much attention if something more noteworthy were going on. Just as there are facts in Katy Turic's case against her, there are some in the bride's case. She made a claim of abduction which is newsworthy in the local area. I can't believe she expected nationwide coverage of her emotional trauma. (great fodder for Olbermann and others). Maybe I'm wrong.

    Bob,

    I forgot to mention that last week I happened to see a promo for Countdown. His silohuetted figure is facing backwards in a chair. I tuned out but when he turned around and the lights came on, I heard the voice over proclaim Keith Olbermann, (I think his name was used) but this is the thrust: "You are entitled to his opinion." Just thought you might find that interesting. Maybe it referenced his Special Comments; I didn't listen to what was said prior.

    I'm glad you mentioned this, Sharon.

    There are a series of "You're entitled to his opinion" commercials which means MSNBC is pushing this idea. I have a real problem with the show being called a newscast when it's being promoted as an opinion show. Once you've crossed that line with such boldness you've lost credibility.

    All the commercials are on youtube.

    ohboy,

    I was completely wrong about ISI- it is the Islamic State in Iraq which Howie no doubt was referring to. This is the worst possible news ...

    Mr Cox, could you, or anyone, explain this to me:

    "why we added the little social networking bookmarklets at the bottom of every post,"

    Thanks, Grammie

    Let me clue you into something, although we aren't living in the Trump Tower, to say the least.... I fell in love with my husband partly for the same reasons, and I have admired his zeal and god given abilities more every year of our marriage. Gold-digger that I am, I even took advantage of them by letting him support me through my last year and a half of college. I've exploited him even more by largely living off his income, even though I could support myself and were I start start a business, I wouldn't fail to exploit every connection he has... I even think his love handles are cute...
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 13, 2007 12:44 PM

    Bottom line, this issue hits close to home for Cecelia, shes not protecting Ms. Tur or is the defender against sexisim. I also had to endure one of her elitist comments on nudity and high art. Cecelia, you have no idea who I am (but we a greater idea of you are, now that you decided to share your aspects of your personal life). Please refrain from addressing me directly in the future. My tolerance is very low for a spoiled gold-digging elitist rich girl like yourself.

    I think we are all kind of delusional to think that the Katy Tur threads are going to hurt her or Olbermann in any way...or for that matter that they really care. These are people with wealth and to some degree power and have such a leg up on any competition. Ms. Tur will not be "unemployed" for long. Good grief, the least Olbermann should do for putting up with his saggy a$$, is secure her a JOB! The fact that she is going through this pretense sans journalism degree is laughable. What is also laughable is to believe that these priveliged pukes actually give a rat's ass what this blog posts and comments. Because if they do, they have biggers issues then any of us here. PEACE!

    Stated very well, Save the Cats. Thanks

    "My moral struggle, RK is that I agree with you and know I shouldn't. I can't bring myself to care about Gitmo when I think of our soldiers."

    If you really care about our soldiers and our American way of life-- more than you desire revenge or desire to inflict pain and suffering on those you hate-- you will learn to resolve that "stuggle." Al Qaeda is delighted that we have forgotten how to speak in unequivocal terms about the ideas of the West. They are delighted by our anger. They are delighted by our willlingness--even our appetite-- to watch their video beheadings and declare our own Jihad against them. These nihilists know they are seeding a whole generation of human suffering, even as we relinguish the moral authority that could stop them.

    VOK,

    Don't give me your holier than thou crap about how I FEEL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    vokie, they are REALLY delighted knowing that the far leftist loons defend them on a daily basis, if you want to know the truth.

    I don't see where I told you how you feel. Nor am I telling you how to feel. But if all the major religions are at all correct, I am in fact quite literally holier than thou on this issue, as you and Benedict point out. More importantly to me, I am standing for American vaiues. Are you?

    Actually I think your candor is refreshing. You are saying you "know" it's wrong to torture, but you "agree" with royalking that it doesn't worry you, because what is done to "our" guys is just as bad. And this makes you so angry, as if your own children had been abducted, that you can't think straight.

    Well, here's a news flash...that's a big part of what they want. Why do you think they create videos of their executions? Because they DON'T want you to see them? Because they DON'T want you to get angry and start acting foolishly?

    The Islamists engaged us because they are threatened by liberalism, which advances inexorably by it's own strength. They cannot stop that advance by themselves. They need us to discredit it. Losing our ability to speak in the moral absolutes that define our way of life means we are poor spokesmen for that way of life. Abdicating our moral superiority is ultimately the only conceivable way we can actually lose to petty tyrants and madmen in a meaningful way.

    Well said, VOK!

    Al Qaeda is delighted that we have forgotten how to speak in unequivocal terms about the ideas of the West. They are delighted by our anger. They are delighted by our willlingness--even our appetite-- to watch their video beheadings and declare our own Jihad against them

    Sorry, this is absolute nonsense.

    Whether we conduct our own "jihad" (as you call it) or not, al Qaeda will continue to attack us.

    They hate us and fight us for our virtues and not our sins, real and imagine. We allow people to worship one God, many Gods, or no God. They demand we worship their God, their vision of God.

    It is appalling that some folks - apparently you - think that there is some equivalency between one side that allows people freedom of conscience and free will versus another side that wishes to deny those freedoms.

    Believe it or not, al-Qaeda will enjoy killing you as much as they enjoy killing us evil conservatives.

    Radical Islam is your advserary; not George Bush and the evil neocons.

    Grammie and Cecelia,

    Watching you guys on this thread has been a really nice reminder for me to avoid crossing the line in a debate (something I am prone to do). :)

    It is weird how really nasty the discourse can get sometimes.

    I came across this on a liberal blog the other day:

    http://www.ivygateblog.com/blog/2006/11/barbara_bush_displays_remarkable_commitment_to_drinking.html

    Which is a link of some assholes trying to make one of the Bush twins look like she is some awful person for drinking at a college football game (if that is the standard I was a really bad person in college).

    Here is one of the nastier comments on this thread:

    " I find it completely disgusting that while her peers are getting smeared all over the map in Iraq and Afghanistan, NotJenna is living the high life, boozing it up at Ivy League football games and basically acting like a trust-fund brat."

    Anyway there were liberals on that site who yelled this was way the F**k out of line.

    Kudos to you two for being the voice of reason here.

    Actually Ohboy, I think they would very likely get a bigger thrill sawing off the heads of the 'useful idiots' with a rusty dull kitchen knife than those who didn't hedge their bets.

    Grammie

    Craigs, you and I had a very nasty, on both sides go round a month or two back. Do you recall it?

    Having read your subsequent posts I have often wondered about it.

    Any thoughts on the subject?

    Grammie

    "Whether we conduct our own "jihad" (as you call it) or not, al Qaeda will continue to attack us."

    Look, if (and I am willing to say it is not a given) we are commiting a "jihad" of our own, you are right we will contine to be attacked regardless of what we do.

    But how we conduct that "jihad" has some pretty serious ramifications regarding the enemies capacity to wage war against us. If we look (whether we are or not) like the great big Super power going in and torturing muslims we are doing wonders for the al Qaeda recruting drives.

    That means more of them attacking us. then recruting even more to attack us again. That means muslims sympathetic to the cause, donating money to groups they might not have otherwise donated too.

    America is is principled place of democracy and fairness, because we choose to act that way. By torturing (if we are, I am willing to concede there is debate on this point) we lose the high ground and we make it easy to say: "Look what evil America is doing to your brothers." Some are going to say this anyway but why prove it to the unconvinced?
    Why not behave like what we are, the good guys?

    Craigs, your argument is based on a very BIG IF.
    IF Muslims only get relatively unbiased accounts of actual events.

    In addition to their own skewed and distorted reports all they have to do is cite real blogs and shows like KOs to give credence to any rhetoric and false reports they fabricate themselves.

    The thing that comes to mind for me is the total absence of any sense of what we used to call in matters of foreign affairs the Loyal Opposition and partisan politics stop at our shores.

    It is a conundrum to balance our free speech rights against our obligation to defend the very source of those rights, our very existence as a nation. I don't know the answer. I doubt if anyone does. I am sure that there are many who THINK they ARE THE ANSWER based on their own view that GWB is the world's biggest terrorist. And I am sure that I will hear from them.

    Grammie

    Craigs, you and I had a very nasty, on both sides go round a month or two back. Do you recall it?

    Having read your subsequent posts I have often wondered about it.

    "Any thoughts on the subject?"

    Grammie, I’ve thought about it quite a bit. The best I can come up with though is this:

    It seems like what happens (in my opinion) is that a person on either side makes an attack out of anger that is all inclusive. Something like: “Just like you fucking conservatives to go and start another war killing thousands of women and children” or “Can’t you liberals do something besides support the terrorist and kill our troops?”

    Now I suppose there are some on the right who may hate Muslims enough to wish to kill babies and maybe some on the left are crazy enough to want to help terrorist, but those are of course crazy extremes of a position.

    The problem though is that original statements posted in anger are all inclusive. It implies that every single conservative wants to go into Iraq out of blood lust, or that every liberal wants to watch Al Qaeda kill Americans. So anyway, since the statement is all inclusive (and a very poor summary of either position), the next Republican who is probably not of the crazy 1% that wants to watch Arab babies die and is highly offended, posts “fuck you whiny liberal I’d rather you people die” or the next liberal comes along who is probably not of the 1% that would rather Al Qaeda win, and yells “ You’re the ones murdering our troops for political purposes! Scumbag!” And before you know it the flame war is on.

    Honestly, I suppose, some of it is kind of natural. I think people get on political blogs to say “What the hell is your side thinking, are you people insane?” But when that happens all it takes is one nasty comment to escalate and before you know, tempers flare, and it is the whole family is being insulted.

    By the way, I’m sorry for anything nasty I might have said. I’d rather discuss things and hold up my ideas for rebuttal than spend time flaming (not good for the blood pressure) but in fairness I don’t always manage to live up to my ideals. Anyway cheers.


    "Craigs, your argument is based on a very BIG IF.
    IF Muslims only get relatively unbiased accounts of actual events."

    Grammie, I don't think muslims will get an unbiased account of what we do in any case but when you have things like Abu Ghraib, images that were not there before are now adding some serious proof to any claims about our intentions. It gives radicals some serious propaganda tools.

    i saw a stat somewhere that before the invasion of iraq our approval rating in Jordan was around 30%. it was something like 41% in egypt. Now it is like 1% and 2% respectively. It wasn't good before because I doubt we were getting a very fair shake in the muslim press but now it is distrously low.

    Not to mention I just think as americans we don't torture. it is not who we are. We're the good guys we give fair trials and beleive in innocent until proven guilty and all that. I'd rather hold on to those ideals at all costs.

    Although I have noticed flame wars really get the boards jumping and the more serious discussions tend to kill it.

    The Islamists engaged us because they are threatened by liberalism
    Posted by: VOK at May 14, 2007 6:53 PM

    If this is true, why were the terrorists backing John Kerry in the last election?

    Craigs, at the time Cecelia and I tentatively played around with the idea that a poster calling himself Dave? might have interspersed himself using your name. It had nothing to do with over generalizations of opponents and everything to do with really skanky personal stuff.

    Enough of that.

    I see your point. But a public that is accustomed to news that includes beheadings, graphic tape of mutilated bodies etc shouldn't be that revved up by the Abu Grab photos, I would think. But constant reinforcement from U S senators on the floor of the Senate comparing this admin to Nazi death camps and soviet Gulags has to give more credence to it.

    We, and undoubtedly the Muslim audience, are barraged with high ranking U S officials, newsmen, commentators pretending to be newsmen (couldn't pass this chance up) and blogs all but toeing the jihad talking points.

    Free speech is one of the brightest jewels in our crown as Americans. I still lament the heinous abuse of that right to make political points by ignoring some longstanding traditions of the role of the loyal opposition and an unspoken agreement to stop partisan politics at the water's edge.

    Grammie

    Jeff nonsense: "why were terrorist's backing John Kerry in the last election."
    They weren't! That was nothing but an invention by the right wing talking point machine...and every THINKING person in America knows it!

    If this is true, why were the terrorists backing John Kerry in the last election?

    ---

    If Osama bin Laden was backing Kerry I suppose it was because GWB never managed to catch a man moving through the mountains with a harem and a dialysis machine. I don't think any polling data exists on the percentage of terrorists supporting a given candidate, but if it did I suspect GWB was way ahead in this category. He has given the terrorists a safe home in Iraq and dominion over the Middle East.

    That was nothing but an invention by the right wing talking point machine...and every THINKING person in America knows it!

    Posted by: Mike at May 14, 2007 9:41 PM
    So, idiot/brainwashed fool, that wasn't al zawahiri or zarqawi on video backing the democrats? Only Fox News ran them, since you keep your faced glued to left wing lies, you never saw it. I and millions of others saw it.

    VOK,

    *If you really care about our soldiers and our American way of life-- more than you desire revenge or desire to inflict pain and suffering on those you hate

    Where in the world did I say that I desire to inflict pain? I said that I had trouble drumming up feelings of sympathy, just as I would if someone harmed my children. The "if you rally cared about our soldiers ..." That is the part that made me furious. I have been sick inside since I heard about the capture of the three soldiers. There is a person who posts here frequently (his name slips my mind) who talks about the Muslims and the Crusades. He is considered off the wall but he is dead on for how the members of the Islamic State of Iraq think.

    *They are delighted by our willlingness--even our appetite-- to watch their video beheadings

    No news organization has ever shown a beheading. I watched one and was so sickened by it that it plagues me still. The beheadings are not quick.

    You are not making any sense at all in your point. If we evil Americans have an appetite to watch beheadings, the shock value would be lost. Khalid Sheikh Mohammad beheaded Daniel Pearl. I don't advocate torture but I can't make myself feel Mohammad's pain. Probably if I were in the room I would. My moral dilemma is that someone much holier than me, the two Popes I spoke of, would not have to be in the room to feel his pain. I am not a perfect human being nor do I pretend to be.

    Abu Graib was not condoned by our government. Only General Karpinsky was disciplined in the higher eschelon, as she should have been. Others should have been and weren't. You can comment all day about Abu Graib but that is not really the issue here. I made an honest comment that you amplified into something completely out of proportion.

    Here is a news flash for you. My reaction to the soldiers' capture was to say that (after having been through this last year with the other capture) the event could change my position entirely: bring them home. Not out of hatred for Bush. Just to keep them from being tortured and butchered. That is the reaction they want. I see that quite clearly after reading your response. They want retreat. Look at their latest demand: stop looking for the soldiers. There is so much more to say but why waste words.

    Craigs, although I haven't agreed with you much, I do appreciate your presence on the site. You made a great suggestion about having another site outside of Olbermann. We are really hijacking it and getting away with it.

    The Jawa Report does a good job of keeping up to date. I am just sick inside. This could be the turning point for me to say get our guys home now.
    Posted by: Sharon at May 12, 2007 11:53 PM

    BovineQueen chews her curd again:

    --
    If this is true, why were the terrorists backing John Kerry in the last election?
    Posted by: royalking at May 14, 2007 9:04 PM --

    Say, Bovine!

    By your logic, or rather lack of any, it is safe to say that the terrorists will also endorse Hillary.

    Having said that, I am more interested in knowing which of those Ex-Bush Supporters turned Nouveau Real Raygun Repuglicans is going to fill them big ass clown shoes of Jr.?
    You know, to continue the *successful* crusade to spray freedumbs in the Middle East? to *Stay The Course*?

    Don't tell me they, the Real Raygun Repuglicans, are going to give up on Jr's idiocy!

    Excerpt: FYI (I never heard of it)
    Mainstream Media Still Supressing News of Vets' Petition

    The Appeal for Courage, organized by a Navy vet who served in Baghdad has collected over 3,000 signatures of active duty personnel since February, 2007:

    As an American currently serving my nation in uniform, I respectfully urge my political leaders in Congress to fully support our mission in Iraq and halt any calls for retreat. I also respectfully urge my political leaders to actively oppose media efforts which embolden my enemy while demoralizing American support at home. The War in Iraq is a necessary and just effort to bring freedom to the Middle East and protect America from further attack.

    Read More "Mainstream Media Still Supressing News of Vets' Petition"

    h/t: Jawa Report

    Jeff spitting out falsehoods again:

    1) - "you never saw it": Wrong! I saw it in it's entirety.

    2) - "Only Fox News ran them:: Wrong again, I saw the video, and it wasn't on Fox News. Everybody ran it, and everybody debated what it meant, you dolt!

    3) - "that wasn't Al zawahiri or Zarqawi on video backing the democrats?" Actually it was Zawahiri, and he did NOT endorse the Democrats at all...the right wing just interpreted it that way, and then ran with it on Fox and right wing radio...and as a result, it MIGHT have actually influenced the election EXACTLY the way Al Qeada wanted it to.

    Now Jeff, why don't you try doing something you probably aren't used to doing for a change.....if Al Qeada REALLY wanted us to elect John Kerry, do you REALLY think they would come right out and endorse the candidate they really wanted to win?

    They just ain't that stupid Jeff! They knew perfectly well that any outright endorement of either side would probably cause voters to vote for the opposite candidate.

    I personally believe that the candidate Al Qeada wanted to win...is the one that DID win! He's done everything else they wanted him to do as well.

    Sharon:

    I'll let the post speak for itself, and we'll have to agree to disagree on the continuation of failed policies.

    http://www.votevets.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=249&Itemid=16

    General Eaton's Letter to President Bush on Veto
    May 1, 2007

    President George W. Bush
    The White House
    1600 Pennsylvania Avenue
    Washington, DC 20500

    Dear Mr. President,

    Today, in your veto message regarding the bipartisan legislation just passed on Operation Iraqi Freedom, you asserted that you so decided because you listen to your commanders on the ground.

    Respectfully, as your former commander on the ground, your administration did not listen to our best advice. In fact, a number of my fellow Generals were forced out of their jobs, because they did not tell you what you wanted to hear -- most notably General Eric Shinseki, whose foresight regarding troop levels was advice you rejected, at our troops' peril.

    The legislation you vetoed today represented a course of action that is long overdue. This war can no longer be won by the military alone. We must bring to bear the entire array of national power - military, diplomatic and economic. The situation demands a surge in diplomacy, and pressure on the Iraqi government to fix its internal affairs. Further, the Army and Marine Corps are on the verge of breaking - or have been broken already - by the length and intensity of this war. This tempo is not sustainable - and you have failed to grow the ground forces to meet national security needs. We must begin the process of bringing troops home, and repairing and growing our military, if we are ever to have a combat-ready force for the long war on terror ahead of us.

    The bill you rejected today sets benchmarks for success that the Iraqis would have to meet, and puts us on a course to redeploy our troops. It stresses the need for sending troops into battle only when they are rested, trained and equipped. In my view, and in the view of many others in the military that I know, that is the best course of action for our security.

    As someone who served this nation for decades, I have the utmost respect for the office you hold. However, as a man of conscience, I could not sit idly by as you told the American people today that your veto was based on the recommendations of military men. Your administration ignored the advice of our military's finest minds before, and I see no evidence that you are listening to them now.

    I urge you to reconsider your position, and work with Congress to pass a bill that achieves the goals laid out above.

    Respectfully,

    Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired

    -----

    And for you Bovine, in case you make it this far, include Major General Paul D. Eaton, USA, Retired, into your swift boating list.

    Bush Supporters!

    AAP,

    I am speaking from a layperson's perspective. It is my understanding that one of the reasons for not going in with a large number of troops is that it would have made us appear like we were occupiers rather than liberators and would not be able to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis. Time proved that we appeared as occupiers eventually anyway (although some people have to be cooperating or there would be no useful intelligence at all) so Shinsheki has the rare opportunity of being vindicated during his lifetime. Often, people die before being vindicated. McCain preached more troops also.

    Just leave aside the whole argument of WMD, etc. What if the Coalition had gone in with little or no regard for collateral damage and strong-fistedly established order rather than even attempting to win the hearts and minds of the people? Let's be honest and say that the majority of our military had the win hearts and minds approach. There are some degenerates and sometimes horrible lapses of judgment, terrible accidents and so on, but I at least believe that most had that goal. But let's just say that instead the approach was to accomplish the mission by any means necessary. Would our status in the world have been any different than now? Would we be at the same place as we are now? Is it wrong to tie the hands of men trained to kill or be killed?

    What kinds of mistakes should a leader publicly admit to during war, particularly this kind of war? I think the President knows he was wrong about the number of troops but it can't be undone now. Many people want Bush to hang his head in shame for personal satisfaction. Is that good for the morale of those in harm's way? I have heard it said, and it makes sense, that there is a plan B but it is not going to be made public. The handover of the government happened on a date different than that announced. I wouldn't be surprised if plans are already underway for withdrawal, pending results by the fall.

    My concern is that by abruptly leaving, the government that will emerge is the Islamic State of Iraq. Unless the moderate Iraqis are willing to take a stand, the strong man wins. That means a very dangerous nation.

    Al-Qaida No. 2 Ayman al-Zawahri condemned President Bush in a video statement, calling him a failure and a liar. “Bush lied, people died,” Zawahri said. “I think that pretty much says it all. He lied about weapons of mass destruction. He has failed in Iraq.”

    “I have a message for the American people,” Zawahri intoned. “If you wish to avoid a catastrophe you must vote this criminal out of office in your upcoming elections. The notion that you can win against our holy jihad is a mirage. You must cut your losses. Only by yielding to Allah’s will can you escape his fiery vengeance. Bring the Democrats to power. They will save your necks and negotiate a peaceful transition to Islam for your country.”

    Howard Dean, Chairman of the Democratic National Committee, congratulated Zawahri on his “enlightened perspective on American politics.” “This is what we’ve been saying all along,” said Dean. “Bush and his Republican lackeys are leading us to catastrophe. If voters give Democrats control of Congress we can end this nightmare by impeaching Bush and pulling out of Iraq.”

    Dean said the transition to Islam would be up to each individual. “Each person would choose for himself,” Dean said. “We will ensure a peaceful transition. People could convert or pay the jizya. There’d be an end to the senseless violence over theological mumbo-jumbo.”

    Evidence of terrorists siding with democrats. Evidence the terrorists DIDN'T want Bush to win, mickey. Just more bs from you. Debunked again, yawn....

    Sharon writes:

    ---
    My concern is that by abruptly leaving, the government that will emerge is the Islamic State of Iraq. Unless the moderate Iraqis are willing to take a stand, the strong man wins. That means a very dangerous nation.
    Posted by: Sharon at May 14, 2007 11:36 PM
    ---

    That's a very reasonable concern, but the withdrawal won't be done in one second. Some people mention anywhere from nine months to one year. The ensuing blood bath will be horrible and it will also taint the USA's reputation. Here is where I would suggest Pres. Bush ought to reach to the international community, even through those who refused to join in the coalition, to mediate and initiate talks with the heads of the different insurgent groups. I will go as far as saying that this step is already being pursued with Condi's latest trip.

    In my opinion, the threat posed by a "Islamic State of Iraq" is also over hyped. The country will be left in shambles but with no military capability at all. I don't think any of the other "Islamic States" i.e. Saudi Arabia, would like to have more Taliban-style leaders as their friends. The only country with a net gain in this mess is Iran, and I repeat that they also should be engaged not only by the USA, but the rest of the international community. My expectation is that perhaps Iran would stop insisting in playing chicken with the US, a most stupid game because we know, and I hope they also realize it, who has the better chances to win.

    It is going to be bitter medicine to swallow. I do not accept that one more live should be lost by refusing to admit the mistakes evident to us and refusing to find another solution. And the sooner the better.

    Maybe he has privately admitted the mistake. Of course withdrawal will take time but as the group gets smaller, the vulnerability increases. If you think of the Iraqis, who lived under fear for so many years under the control of a small group, they are susceptible to falling under that same type of control. I hope you are correct about ISI. In the meantime, the group claims to have our men and if that is true, they are suffering.

    *My expectation is that perhaps Iran would stop insisting in playing chicken with the US, a most stupid game because we know, and I hope they also realize it, who has the better chances to win.

    The current leader is a Holocaust denier. I don't know if he is as powerful as he thinks he is or not, but the man seems to be absolutely crazy to me. How do you reckon with crazy people?

    Great Jeff, you started out talking about the 2004 election and then skipped ahead to the 2006 election in order to 'prove' your point.

    Nice switch!

    Now once again for the mentally challenged.....the terrorists know full well that endorsing one candidate or party will likely backfire...therefore any so called 'endorsement' would be suspect.

    Now Jeff, why didn't you mention Zawihiri's direct endorsement of Bush's current policy just a about week or so ago?

    Oh I see...your argument only works for you as long as the terrorists appear to be endorsing the Democrats!

    The ugly truth remains, Mr. Jeff....we have been doing precisely what Al Qeada wnats us to do since the invasion of Iraq.

    Sharon writes:

    --If you think of the Iraqis, who lived under fear for so many years under the control of a small group, they are susceptible to falling under that same type of control. I hope you are correct about ISI. In the meantime, the group claims to have our men and if that is true, they are suffering.
    Posted by: Sharon at May 15, 2007 1:07 AM
    ---

    In other posts, I've commented on the issue. Some of the more callous remarks, by others, even call for finding "another dictator, someone who will reign in these animals". Again, not a pretty sight or a compliment to the USA.

    Let's pray the missing soldiers are returned unharmed.

    Besides our military, the people I feel the most pity for are the ones who did have hope for a democracy. I have to believe CJ when he related the treatment he received at the hands of decent people. (I can't remember if you were on when he guested here or not.) A point I have made before and one I know you see differently is that right before the bombing of the mosque, there was an upswing. That mosque could have been bombed at any point, why then? People were getting too hopeful, and when you are hopeful, you are strong and when you are strong, you stand up. It is clear that the bombing of the mosque lead to the current strife between Sunni and Shia.

    Also, there have been marriages between Sunni and Shia. I can't remember where I read the story but a mixed couple received death threats to leave the neighborhood. The man was stubborn and refused. He was forcibly taken, I think from a gas station and executed. People do start to mingle, unless you are too ingrained.

    I have a busy day tomorrow and have to wind up here. I'll look for any further comments tomorrow. I will be praying. Because of the time difference, the bad news often seems to be waiting in the morning.

    Sharon writes:

    -- I feel the most pity for are the ones who did have hope for a democracy... It is clear that the bombing of the mosque lead to the current strife between Sunni and Shia. --

    I will only say that mixing politics and religion is a very dangerous mix.
    I won't go into a long explanation, and I'm sure many will challenge me on this, but for sake of brevity I'll state that many democracies develop along ideas of secularism and individual equality.

    Also, these ideas take decades, even hundreds of years to take root.

    "Raise your hand if you *do not believe* in evolution?"

    RK, your post @ 12:38 AM was very interesting. I obviously missed the details at the time and just came away with the general impression that there were accusations and horrified rebuttals.

    I think I had the message that both Kerry and Bush responded to a day or two before the election. That message was very ambiguous and both men dismissed it.

    Grammie

    Sharm, your post @ 11:36 PM was an excellent and fairly unique perspective.

    I hope to meet up with you today to discuss it.

    Grammie

    >>>>Believe it or not, al-Qaeda will enjoy killing you as much as they enjoy killing us evil conservatives.

    I absolutely agree. Actually, they would probably enjoy killing me more because I am a liberal. Liberalism is what threatens them. Fighting, killing, dying, does not. They welcome that. They welcome our deaths and they welcome their own deaths. They welcome war.

    >>>>...some equivalency between one side that allows people freedom of conscience and free will versus another side that wishes to deny those freedoms.>>>>

    I absolutely deny that equivalency. Not only because we practice freedom for people the majority agrees are good guys. It is because we universally adhere to the rule of law, which is the practical expression of the notion that ALL men are created equal. I flatly deny that one can effectively defend liberty with torture, secret evidence, indefinite uncharged detention, and above all a loss of moral clarity on the dignity of man. It is a recipe to kill one and create ten more. It's stupid and un-American.

    The Islamists are deluded. They fervently believe in a corrupt system that is unsustainable and denies human nature, a system they want to implement by force. Sound familiar? We cannot force them away from this delusion. We have to provide the counter example and draw men to it. We have to stand up for human rights, and we have to do it clearly and we have to do it everywhere. That is how we "won" the cold war, and that is how we will win this one too.

    >>>>Radical Islam is your advserary; not George Bush and the evil neocons.>>>>

    The neocons aren't evil. They are simply mistaken about the value of physical force in a modern clash of ideologies. The more practical ones (Fukyama for instance) are now in the process of realizing and explaining this to the ideologues. But there is a sizable group of people that foolishly believes that you have to fight fire with fire, and is willing to let all our real advantages burn up to do it. I'd count Bush among these. 'They do it, so we have to if we want to compete, and plus we don't do it as bad, we just "coercively interrogate."' This is simply incoherant, both from a practical and moral point of view.

    >>>Actually Ohboy, I think they would very likely get a bigger thrill sawing off the heads of the 'useful idiots' with a rusty dull kitchen knife than those who didn't hedge their bets.>>>

    Hedge their bets? Is that what you think we who stand up for traditional liberal values are doing? Like we think somehow the terrorists are going to take over the U.S.? I'll bet unequivocally on freedom and the rule of law every time. How about you? You guys think freedom and the rule of law is too weak to withstand the onslaught of the world's kooks and madmen. You want to deny human rights to save them. Your position is morally and practically untenable.

    Chicken Blogger, how kind and thoughtful of you to misinterpret my remark by omitting the context of prior posts, ask me several questions and then answer for me.

    Well, I guess you won that round.

    Grammie

    Just swinging the topic back off politics and back to the meaningless speculation of Olbermann's fan girls:

    I wonder what the fan girls think of Mr. Olbermann now that they know what Ms. Tur looks like & can view her "journalism" skills hard at work. They have been quite, but I wonder if they are secretly happy yet mad at the same time. Its kind of funny really, when reading the comments on the fan girls sites, you get a sense that many of them are journalism student drop outs or some other type of frustrated writer (ex: Border's Books employees, coffee shop counter girls, etc.), so this must be somewhat galling. Theory, maybe they deep down feel that his relationship is not going to last and he will come back to trolling his fan base for "dates."

    Olbermann, marry Ms. Tur by years' end, and don't forget the PRENUP! Ha!

    Cats, it was a link to Aryan Nation . I didn't agree with your take on the link being there. I also linked to it, read their short blurb and got out quick.

    Correct me if I'm wrong in any of my recollections, but that was one of several links in a roundup on the Imus debacle. Considering the subject was racism I thought it was appropriate.

    I also didn't see that the link somehow gave the impression that R Cox or OW could be construed as endorsing or condoning those cretins.

    It had the opposite effect on me. The jolt of the picture combined with the relatively well written, straight forward and concise tone of the statement was a bit scary.

    This group is a very small ineffectual way out there fringe with no power or influence. We can't dismiss them out of hand because history is full of such groups rising to power, from the early Christians (a cult, per the first century Romans, way out there), to the Nazis in early 1920 Germany. to the growing German Bund in our own country in the 1930s and very early 1940s.

    Groups such as these can sometimes rise to complete power or become large enough to have some influence and power or die obscure deaths.

    So, I actually think the link R Cox posted to The Aryan Nation served a good purpose. Pretend they don't exist and one day we may wake up with a king sized rattler slithering around the country.

    Grammie
    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at May 12, 2007 6:28 PM

    "Chicken Blogger, how kind and thoughtful of you to misinterpret my remark by omitting the context of prior posts, ask me several questions and then answer for me.

    Well, I guess you won that round."

    O.K. Grammie, I'll bite. Who are you refering to as the "usefull idiots" who are hedging their bets? I took it to mean those of us who say the U.S. needs to support human rights always and everywhere, rather than losing our unequivocal moral voice when it is needed most.

    This from one of our BDS exhibiting Chicken Bloggers was the only response I got.

    "Maybe your spectacles need adjusting.
    That king size rattler is alive and well in the Constitution defying Bush Administration.
    But then again, they're doing exactly what you want them to be doing.
    Posted by: at May 12, 2007 6:34 PM"

    Grammie

    Hi Grammie, I saw your post earlier. Perhpas I over-reacted to the KKK stuff, but growing up in a racist city, I unfortunately witnessed neo-nazis trying to recruit kids from the neighborhood. And perhaps like you said, they have become "...very small ineffectual way out there fringe with no power or influence." I don't think they should be ignored either, but I was just taken a back that Robert would provide a separate thread and link to the Aryan Nation. But as he has stated, (about the Katy Tur stuff), bottom line, it is about web traffic.

    VOK, the one line comment was made in the context of several posts discussing what in our country influences one way or the other Islamofascists.

    I can understand a difference of opinion on what policy we follow. But much of the disagreement is done in a tone of apology and appeasement and reassurance that not all Americans are stupid, bigoted and bellicose.

    Just as Josef Stalin marveled at and relished what he called 'the useful idiots' ie American Communist party members, fellow travelers, traitors such as Alger Hiss and generally far left socialists in th U S. I can't remember his name right now but there was a world famous Soviet correspondent for the NYT (Pulitzer Prize winner I think) who was later proved to have generally filed false and extremely misleading reports.

    I see somewhat of a parallel in many today. Anyone, especially high elected officials and people of prominence, who call GWB and Repubs the greatest menace in the world and all but foam at the mouth when screaming accusations of torture, Gestapo and SS tactics, gitmo is a Gulag.

    I would call any such people useful idiots.

    Now, were you Chicken Blogger?

    Grammie

    Just so you understand the real thrust of my post. We should never let these groups fly totally under the radar or we could get a very nasty surprise.

    Grammie

    Janet: "I see somewhat of a parallel in many today. Anyone, especially high elected officials and people of prominance, who call GWB and the Repubs the greatest menace in the world and all but foam at the mouth when screaming accusations of torture, Gestapo, and SS tactics, Gitmo is a gulag."

    And I see an entirely different metaphor:

    Lets say America is a baseball team, and George Bush & Co. is it's clean up batter, and shortstop; The problem is that in the last 100 times at bat, he struck out....and the last 100 ground balls he tried to field, he missed, or fumbled.

    Now SOME would keep saying old George is due to make a hit any time now, so lets just leave him in the line up....he's just bound to get a hit or catch a ball sooner or later.

    I would call those kind of diehard supporters the "useful idiots"!

    However, anyone with common sense would say....get ole George out of there and lets get somebody in there who can actually play ball.

    Well let's see Mike, W is in Inning 7 of his 9 (okay in his case 8 innings) but bottom line is that the game is about to over for him and his team will be benched and a new team will take the field.

    I guess we were having two different conversations grammie. I don't know who "chicken blogger" is or what you are talking about there. What I was talking about is how standing up for traditional American liberal values and human rights is quite the opposite of appeasement or "hedging bets." It is making a strong bet on our traditional strength instead of chucking it to immitate some punk would-be dictators.

    I don't pretend to care about our violations of human rights because I think Al Qaeda will like me or it will "appease" them. I really do care about our violations of human rights. And I care because it is morally wrong, it is un-American, it is cowardly, and it is a long-term loser in this long struggle for hearts and minds.

    I also care because I can't stand for injustice and torture to be conducted in my name, in the name of making me a little "safer." I'm just not yet scared enough to dump my values and start acting in an immoral and counterproductive way. I wasn't on September 12, and I'm not now.

    VOK, if all the hyperbolic rhetoric like some I noted above were true I would agree with you. There has been precious little of it considering the situation and length of time involved. And much of what is there is so overblown. And the bulk of that has been individuals not government policy.

    I was also including those (and remember I am talking about high profile individuals and venues) who use use terms such as war criminal, torturer, murderous etc re GWB.

    The quote you questioned meant that just as Uncle Joe's useful idiots would have been disposable if Stalinism had prevailed UBL's useful idiots would be too.

    I understand the nature of the current threat is on a different scale and of a distinct nature from earlier conflicts. But it is early days and the proliferation of WMD and the tenuous hold we have on restricting access to legitimate governments makes things very iffy. Hell, the madman, and I mean that literally, Kim Jung Ill (sp) is scary enough without having UBL and his murderous war crimes ilk gaining access to them.

    I believe we should make the commitment to this war that we did in WW II. We didn't become our enemy but we loosened up enough of our normal restrictions to devastate the enemy. But I know that it is a virtual certainty that we will pull out Iraq. Those that favor that approach see much good flowing from it.

    I, for reasons I have reiterated in great detail in earlier posts, think that if we withdraw (and it can only be withdrawal from lack of will) we will have sown the wind and reap the whirlwind.

    Grammie

    3:43, anyone with common sense wouldn't say what you just said!

    Funny thing 7:08 anon, I've been know all my life among my peers for having exceptional common sense....more than any other single attribute.

    Yet I get on line, and suddenly I lack common sense....but only according to the rabid Bush followers!

    Bottom line, this issue hits close to home for Cecelia, shes not protecting Ms. Tur or is the defender against sexisim. I also had to endure one of her elitist comments on nudity and high art. Cecelia, you have no idea who I am (but we a greater idea of you are, now that you decided to share your aspects of your personal life). Please refrain from addressing me directly in the future. My tolerance is very low for a spoiled gold-digging elitist rich girl like yourself.

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 14, 2007 12:48 PM

    Hahaha! You know, Cats, I was THIIISSS close to trying to disabuse you of this fantasy of yours, but ...what the hell.... this is as close as I'll ever get to being your gold-digger trophy wife of the six figured income husband... (BTW, while settling the score with all the "mean girls" of your past, ever investigated Tur's background or wondered why millionaire Olbermann settled for the merely "pretty" Tur?}

    Home, Jeeves...

    Notice how all the GOP candidates are running as far from Bush as they can.

    If he's such a great president as Cee and all you other dopes say, wouldn't they be backing all of his successes ?

    ( Wingnuts , scratching their heads ! )

    I think we are all kind of delusional to think that the Katy Tur threads are going to hurt her or Olbermann in any way...or for that matter that they really care. These are people with wealth and to some degree power and have such a leg up on any competition. Ms. Tur will not be "unemployed" for long. Good grief, the least Olbermann should do for putting up with his saggy a$$, is secure her a JOB! The fact that she is going through this pretense sans journalism degree is laughable. What is also laughable is to believe that these priveliged pukes actually give a rat's ass what this blog posts and comments. Because if they do, they have biggers issues then any of us here. PEACE!

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 14, 2007 12:58 PM


    Occasionally, Che Cats Guevara, you might consider that it's not always a matter of how someone else feels about whether or not you have done the right thing, even when that person is the one you are trying to protect.

    Now, I know it's much more upstanding, logical and moral to argue that Tur is a gold digging opportunist (and worse...) who doesn't deserve consideration, and who likely either doesn't care or is lapping up the publicity and seeing clients line up at the door....than it is to be a mean old grouch who might think that you do something because it's right no matter what anyone, including the person you don't want exploited, might think....

    BTW-- a degree in journalism is not essential or even especially respected in the industry.

    Give it up Cecelia, you've been soundly outvoted and slapped down repeatedly on this subject.

    Give it up Cecelia, you've been soundly outvoted and slapped down repeatedly on this subject.

    Posted by: at May 15, 2007 9:29 PM


    Oh get real....like anyone who might wish to slap down any contradiction on this, wouldn't be the first to deny any importance on a bonafide ...count the hands vote...

    Cecelia, majority opinion only counts when the Chickens and their cohorts on in the majority.

    If they are in the minority they stand on that high moral ground of exclusive righteousness.

    Geesh, you should know that. :)

    Grammie

    Cecelia, majority opinion only counts when the Chickens and their cohorts on in the majority.

    If they are in the minority they stand on that high moral ground of exclusive righteousness.

    Geesh, you should know that. :)

    Grammie

    Posted by: Janet Hawkins at May 15, 2007 10:46 PM

    Sometimes the high ground isn't any higher than the common ground of do unto and judge not lest ye be judged.

    You don't own this board Cecelia.

    You don't own this board Cecelia.

    Posted by: at May 15, 2007 11:06 PM


    Well, duhh.

    Bob has already weighed in on this subject. More than once. It's time to let it go. If you did, this topic wouldn't get repeatedly kicked to the top. if you're so concerned about Tur then why do you keep kicking this to the top?

    Bob has already weighed in on this subject. More than once. It's time to let it go. If you did, this topic wouldn't get repeatedly kicked to the top. if you're so concerned about Tur then why do you keep kicking this to the top?

    Posted by: at May 15, 2007 11:12 PM


    I answered a post that accused me of being two things that I'm not-- a hypocrite and rich. You want me to let it go, then don't engage me.

    No one wants to engage you. I'm sure no one even wants to date you.

    No one wants to engage you. I'm sure no one even wants to date you.

    Posted by: at May 15, 2007 11:31 PM


    But bore me to tears... yeah... you'll do that...

    I watched the video

    No need for me to say anything

    Katy said it herself in the video

    She sucks.........................

    .......I bet she sucks at that too

    Just a little reminder on who Cecelia is and where's she's coming from: Privilege, moralizing, condescending gold-digging "mean" girl. Pardon me, while I wipe the tears away...
    "My father was an attorney and part-time professional photographer. Among his portfolio were nude pictures. His books and magazines on photography included some too. If you happen to go to a museum, STC, you might see a few there, as well. Grow up the hell up."
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 12, 2007 5:17 PM
    Let me clue you into something, although we aren't living in the Trump Tower, to say the least.... I fell in love with my husband partly for the same reasons, and I have admired his zeal and god given abilities more every year of our marriage. Gold-digger that I am, I even took advantage of them by letting him support me through my last year and a half of college. I've exploited him even more by largely living off his income, even though I could support myself and were I start start a business, I wouldn't fail to exploit every connection he has... I even think his love handles are cute...
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 13, 2007 12:44 PM


    My response has not changed from my earlier response:
    Bottom line, this issue hits close to home for Cecelia, she is NOT protecting Ms. Tur or is the defender against sexism. I also had to endure one of her elitist comments on nudity and high art. Cecelia, you have NO IDEA WHO I AM (but we all have a greater idea of you are, now that you decided to share your aspects of your personal life). Please refrain from addressing me directly in the future. My tolerance is very low for a spoiled gold-digging elitist rich girl like yourself.
    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 14, 2007 12:48 PM
    I think we are all kind of delusional to think that the Katy Tur threads are going to hurt her or Olbermann in any way...or for that matter that they really care. These are people with wealth and to some degree power and have such a leg up on any competition. Ms. Tur will not be "unemployed" for long. Good grief, the least Olbermann should do for putting up with his saggy a$$, is secure her a JOB! The fact that she is going through this pretense sans journalism degree is laughable. What is also laughable is to believe that these privileged pukes actually give a rat's ass what this blog posts and comments. Because if they do, they have bigger issues then any of us here. PEACE!
    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 14, 2007 12:58 PM

    BTW-- a degree in journalism is not essential or even especially respected in the industry.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 15, 2007 8:44 PM

    The most perfect response from someone who does not have to worry about the quality of one's job qualifications when securing a job. Because when you have connections and a sugar daddy, earning money isn't quite high up on one's priority list nor do you need that silly thing like "integrity".

    >>>I believe we should make the commitment to this war that we did in WW II. We didn't become our enemy but we loosened up enough of our normal restrictions to devastate the enemy.>>>

    I absolutely concur that we should commit as stongly as we did in WWII. Including everyday sacrifices by ordinary citizens in their everyday lives. But as you recognize, this isn't WWII. This is a completely different kind of fight. Completely. 100%. Totally.

    "Loosening up" our moral standards in this fight is the opposite of what we should do. We need to tighten up. We need to become better and more strident advocates for our liberal Western values, because this is a contest of values, not firebombs. We need to be the world's greatest spokesmen against theocracy, and for individual human rights and the rule of law worldwide. We need to hold ourselves to a higher standard of justice, not a lower one.

    I don't think you really disagree at heart, but I think you and Sharon are creating ambiguity where there is none. It is comforting to think that lowering the standards for treatment of suspects and qualifying the rule of law is not governmet policy but some rogue elements. That's simply not true. The administration has pushed on every level for the legalization and implementation of harsher treatment and "special rules" for those it suspects of Islamic terrorism.

    They are even inventing a new language to talk about it without sounding offensive. In this new language, it is possible to die by asphixiation, blood loss, hypothermia, or suicide-- without having been exposed to anything more than perfectly legal and acceptable "coercive interrogation." Without ever having a lawyer. Without ever having a trial or even a hearing. Without ever having a public record that you were even in custody. This will not help us win. This only helps our enemies.

    >>>I, for reasons I have reiterated in great detail in earlier posts, think that if we withdraw (and it can only be withdrawal from lack of will) we will have sown the wind and reap the whirlwind.>>>>

    Why can it only be withdrawal from lack of will? Isn't it possibly that the invasion and occupation is only weakening us and strenthening our enemy? Do you see evidence that this is not exactly what is happening? Our efforts to hunt them down, smoke them out, and kill them are backfiring. We are killing 1, creating 2, and sapping our own morale in the process.

    This is a very very complicated situation. It would be nice if it was just a matter of willing our way to victory by sticking in and killing all the "bad guys." Unfortunately, it isn't, and I see that insistence as the core of the new irrationalism on the right, every bit as bad and somewhat more dangerous than the irrationalism on the left. It's a desire for the simplicity that just isn't there.

    I watched the video

    No need for me to say anything

    Katy said it herself in the video

    She sucks.........................

    .......I bet she sucks at that too

    Posted by: puck at May 16, 2007 11:11 AM


    I had wondered if you were going to stay anonymous.

    (BTW, while settling the score with all the "mean girls" of your past, ever investigated Tur's background or wondered why millionaire Olbermann settled for the merely "pretty" Tur?}
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 15, 2007 7:43 PM

    I am not sure how to respond to this, since it makes very little sense to me, but what the heck:

    It's pretty much out there (without much "investigating") that one could gather that Mr. Olbermann was in hot water with his fan "escapades" and his higher ups (or close friends) told him to cool it and "stabilize" your life before you sink lower than the current cable oblivion you are currently in. (I would hope he would have good friends to give him that kind of advice). Trolling friends & colleagues in his "line of work" afforded him the opportunity to "hook up" with Ms. Tur via her connected news-industry parents.

    As he gains in popularity, (do to a natural swing back to the left via the Dems take over & unpopular war), he mentions he has a "girlfriend" in every possible venue afforded to him: HIS cable Countdown show, numerous interviews, radio show with Dan Patrick, (I'm still waiting for him to blog about her, I'm sure it's just around the corner).

    Besides professionally attacking Bill O'Reilly daily, he begins PERSONALLY attacking Anderson Cooper via gay baiting. (Personally I thought Olbermann was gay but honestly, gay people are simply not as dorky and tacky as he is--- marbled Trump Condo--yikes!). I would hope Olbermann has nothing against gays, and that the Cooper attacks are merely a ratings tactic...just like having a "girlfriend" (for a person, age 48, who has NEVER had a stable female relationship) could be a stabilizing career goal in his life. Ahhhhh love.

    BTW: (I forgot to log when when I originally posted this (with one addition):

    Ce---ce---lia your breaking my heart.....your breaking my confidence daily...Oh Ce---ce---lia I'm down on my knees, I'm begging you PLLLEEEEEASE STOP READING THE FU*KING KATY TUR THREADS!

    BTW-- a degree in journalism is not essential or even especially respected in the industry.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 15, 2007 8:44 PM

    The most perfect response from someone who does not have to worry about the quality of one's job qualifications when securing a job. Because when you have connections and a sugar daddy, earning money isn't quite high up on one's priority list nor do you need that silly thing like "integrity".

    Vok, This will shock you but I think you are over simplifying my points. You also seem to have totally missed some of what I actually said which has led you to misinterpret me also.

    I will answer you as best I can. It will certainly be a too long post but any one can skip it.

    Grammie

    The most perfect response from someone who does not have to worry about the quality of one's job qualifications when securing a job. Because when you have connections and a sugar daddy, earning money isn't quite high up on one's priority list nor do you need that silly thing like "integrity".


    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 12:18 PM


    You're so ridiculous. I don't have a sugar daddy, I have a husband. We'v'e been married since we were kids. We have a grown daughter. I have a college degree and have worked for years in a field where I am able to choose my own hours and my own area. My husband has worked for years, is a smart guy, and makes more money than I do-- though if I worked full time (which I did for years) I could quite easily take care of myself in a middle-class manner...

    Get a grip, Comrad Marx.... And it's no use talking about integrity while you're arguing that a young woman, who is attempting to work in the field of her choice, still doesn't deserve respect or the treatment you'd mete out to others, because her parents are successful and she happens to have a rich boyfriend who shares her interest in broadcasting.

    Would you guys mind moving the political comments to another thread (if only to help build up comments on other low comment threads). I would be nice focus this thread back to the original topic, Ms. Tur's job skills. Great Thanks.

    BTW-- a degree in journalism is not essential or even especially respected in the industry.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 15, 2007 8:44 PM

    The most perfect response from someone who does not have to worry about the quality of one's job qualifications when securing a job. Because when you have connections and a sugar daddy, earning money isn't quite high up on one's priority list nor do you need that silly thing like "integrity".


    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 1:10 PM


    No, it makes perfect sense from someone who reads up on the field of journalism, Ms Prole...

    Degrees in International Affairs, Political Science, etc.... are every bit as relevant as degrees in journalism. What employers look for are folks who have plied their trade via working for radio, tv, newspapers, from the bottom onward while in college.

    I think we have enough personal information from you Ms.Cecelia Gabor...run along now....but thank you for providing us a "golden nugget" of your work eithic integrity and personal philosophy:

    "a degree in journalism is not essential or even especially respected in the industry.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 15, 2007 8:44 PM"

    Would you guys mind moving the political comments to another thread (if only to help build up comments on other low comment threads). I would be nice focus this thread back to the original topic, Ms. Tur's job skills. Great Thanks.

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 1:17 PM


    You mean the job skills that you're deriding of a 23 year old woman, just starting out, although she IS working rather than just out shopping....

    I think we have enough personal information from you Ms.Cecelia Gabor...run along now....but thank you for providing us a "golden nugget" of your work eithic integrity and personal philosophy:

    "a degree in journalism is not essential or even especially respected in the industry.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 15, 2007 8:44 PM"

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 1:24 PM


    I'm sure you're much more comfortable with your own fantasy.... :D

    Sweetie, I think you are forgetting what you already posted...

    Let me clue you into something, although we aren't living in the Trump Tower, to say the least.... I fell in love with my husband partly for the same reasons, and I have admired his zeal and god given abilities more every year of our marriage. Gold-digger that I am, I even took advantage of them by letting him support me through my last year and a half of college. I've exploited him even more by largely living off his income, even though I could support myself and were I start start a business, I wouldn't fail to exploit every connection he has... I even think his love handles are cute...
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 13, 2007 12:44 PM

    I guess, Ms. Cecelia Gabor has lost "site" of the original thread, perhpas her maid didn't have a chance to read it to her. Allow me to post it here, so all that "scrolling up" doesn't tire out our Ms. Cecelia...

    "And then there are the comments left by Ms. Katy Tur at her CurrentTV page:

    I am not a journalism student, but I grew up in the business and I seemed to soak some of it in (much to my parents chagrin). Now I'm just freelancing, trying to get my foot in the door somewhere.

    Foot in the door somewhere? Huh? Katy's parents are Robert and Marika Tur, who broke the story on the LA Riots, shot the Reginald Denney beating and found OJ Simpson on his infamous slow-speed chase. And before she moved to NYC, Katy did have a foot in the door, in fact, you might say that she had her entire body in the door as her first job out of college, sans journalism degree, was as a producer at KTLA in Los Angeles."

    It's pretty much out there (without much "investigating") that one could gather that Mr. Olbermann was in hot water with his fan "escapades" and his higher ups (or close friends) told him to cool it and "stabilize" your life before you sink lower than the current cable oblivion you are currently in. (I would hope he would have good friends to give him that kind of advice). Trolling friends & colleagues in his "line of work" afforded him the opportunity to "hook up" with Ms. Tur via her connected news-industry parents.

    As he gains in popularity, (do to a natural swing back to the left via the Dems take over & unpopular war), he mentions he has a "girlfriend" in every possible venue afforded to him: HIS cable Countdown show, numerous interviews, radio show with Dan Patrick, (I'm still waiting for him to blog about her, I'm sure it's just around the corner).

    Besides professionally attacking Bill O'Reilly daily, he begins PERSONALLY attacking Anderson Cooper via gay baiting. (Personally I thought Olbermann was gay but honestly, gay people are simply not as dorky and tacky as he is--- marbled Trump Condo--yikes!). I would hope Olbermann has nothing against gays, and that the Cooper attacks are merely a ratings tactic...just like having a "girlfriend" (for a person, age 48, who has NEVER had a stable female relationship) could be a stabilizing career goal in his life. Ahhhhh love.


    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 1:02 PM


    Well, that's some fantasy, but surely even you see that it's hard for you to argue that Olbermann's money could buy any number of women, much more attractive and substancial that Katy Tur.... and then argue that he settled for the girl-next-door pretty Katy Tur. Has occurred to you, that had your fantasy scenario been the case, it would not have been in Olbermann's interest to invite further controversy by such a May-December relationship?

    Here's a scenario for you-- Olbermann is self-involved, insecure, and bad at relationships... but like most of us he wants one... He meets a bright, pretty, young girl, who shares his interests, is in his social league, is no threat to himself professional, etc... who makes him feel like the big man mentor. She on the otherhand probably thinks he pees brilliance and IS the reincarnation of Edward R. Murrow...

    This suits Olbermann just fine. They're getting along well...he's as in love as he'll ever be, and like most folks in love...he talks about it...

    They may be separated tomorrow.... but this scenario is every bit as valid as yours, if not more logical, and certainly less needlessly disdainful and envious.

    Would you guys mind moving the political comments to another thread (if only to help build up comments on other low comment threads). I would be nice focus this thread back to the original topic, Ms. Tur's job skills. Great Thanks.

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 1:17 PM


    Folks, I may have gotten in a tizzy over the treatment of a young woman, but I've never directed people to which threads they should take their comments...

    We shouldn't be surprised, class warfare socialist types, always try to take over...

    Foot in the door somewhere? Huh? Katy's parents are Robert and Marika Tur, who broke the story on the LA Riots, shot the Reginald Denney beating and found OJ Simpson on his infamous slow-speed chase. And before she moved to NYC, Katy did have a foot in the door, in fact, you might say that she had her entire body in the door as her first job out of college, sans journalism degree, was as a producer at KTLA in Los Angeles."


    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 1:36 PM


    Exactly, therefore she didn't' need a "sugar daddy".

    I have any number of friends and acquaintances, who have gone into the same field as their parents, and automatically have a leg-up because of that. Plumbers, automechanics, lawyers, doctors, who have stepped in to a business started by their parents. Anything in particular wrong with this?

    Perhaps you can go paint red X's on the doors of all businesses entitled So-n-So & Son...

    Tur may have been given a leg-up, as lots of folks in all walks of life, have been, but she's going to have to prove herself, or she won't get farther than merely being the daughter of.... who knows the basics because she's been there....

    But then here you are deriding her for trying. For putting her work out there instead of just going shopping, which you'd condemn too.

    You really are an envious putz.

    "Would you guys mind moving the political comments to another thread (if only to help build up comments on other low comment threads). I would be nice focus this thread back to the original topic, Ms. Tur's job skills. Great Thanks."

    No. This thread topic is moronic, puerile, and bigoted. It deserves to stay at the top of the list as a reminder of what a classless clown you are for digging up personal dirt for Robert "anything for a hit" Cox. It reminds what often passes for debate here among the irrational right.

    If you are so passionate about getting your chance for Cecelia to make you look like a fool over and over and over and over and over and over and over, you are going to have to wade through posts of actual substance to do it.

    I think I missed one "over." I'm going to have to go back and count.

    Let me clue you into something, although we aren't living in the Trump Tower, to say the least.... I fell in love with my husband partly for the same reasons, and I have admired his zeal and god given abilities more every year of our marriage. Gold-digger that I am, I even took advantage of them by letting him support me through my last year and a half of college. I've exploited him even more by largely living off his income, even though I could support myself and were I start start a business, I wouldn't fail to exploit every connection he has... I even think his love handles are cute...
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 13, 2007 12:44 PM

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 1:30 PM


    So you took THIS and mentally put me in the lap of luxury with hot and cold running servants...

    but this scenario is every bit as valid as yours, if not more logical, and certainly less needlessly disdainful and envious.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 1:37 PM

    BINGO! Ms. Gabor, may I repeat & modify using your language:

    Besides professionally attacking Bill O'Reilly daily, he begins PERSONALLY attacking Anderson Cooper via gay baiting. I would hope Olbermann IS NOT NEEDLESSLY DISDAINFUL of gays, and that the Cooper attacks are merely an ENVIOUS ratings tactic..."

    In other words, Ms. Cecelia (who obviously this ISSUE hits too close to home), I do not care if Olbermann buys a more expensive relationship (or is in a relationship for that matter), the point is OLBERMAN PERSONALLY ATTACKS OTHERS "TEN-FOLD", but because in this case, a college-age girl like your daughter is invovled verses when a gay man is involved and your "outrage" is ...eh, not so much. (What if Cooper was dating someone that did not want to be outed, I guess his boyfriend has no right to privacy either---oh, yeah, thats right Cooper is a public figure and Ms. Tur is not, yeah right).

    I now fully understand where your "outrage" as a mom and May-December wife comes from, but stop with the hypocrisy.

    As for my "fantasy" senerio, I am simply recounting what Robert, Brandon and others have posted here on OW.

    To VOK: the link was already here, A$$clown.

    In other words, Ms. Cecelia (who obviously this ISSUE hits too close to home), I do not care if Olbermann buys a more expensive relationship (or is in a relationship for that matter), the point is OLBERMAN PERSONALLY ATTACKS OTHERS "TEN-FOLD", but because in this case, a college-age girl like your daughter is invovled verses when a gay man is involved and your "outrage" is ...eh, not so much. (What if Cooper was dating someone that did not want to be outed, I guess his boyfriend has no right to privacy either---oh, yeah, thats right Cooper is a public figure and Ms. Tur is not, yeah right).

    I now fully understand where your "outrage" as a mom and May-December wife comes from, but stop with the hypocrisy.

    As for my "fantasy" senerio, I am simply recounting what Robert, Brandon and others have posted here on OW.

    To VOK: the link was already here, A$$clown.

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 2:10 PM


    Let me get this straight-- because Keith Olbermann tried to out Anderson Cooper, it doesn't matter how disrespectful you are of Katy Tur? She's not really a person, she's just a mean of your getting back at Anderson Cooper?

    Let me get part two straight as well-- Not only do you know that I am a rich bitch, because my husband earns a middle-class income, you know too that I cared not a fig about Olbermann's hypocrisy towards Anderson Cooper... based upon what-- the fact that if I did care I wouldn't have minded that you derided one person because she's connected to someone you don't like...

    That about it?

    You really are amoral idiot.

    She's not really a person, she's just a mean of your getting back at Anderson Cooper?


    Rather--- She's not really a person, she's just a means of your getting back for Anderson Cooper...

    Here's are two posts I wrote in April bashing Olbermann over his comments about Anderson Cooper:


    "Yes, Olbermann does seem to have a strange fascination with Cooper's sexual orientation.

    I think it comes from his insecurity...the need to talk about his perceived rivals.

    But since KO has known gay contributors on his show, where's the evidence that Keith thinks being gay is bad or potentially damaging to Cooper?

    Yes, public figures SHOULD be able to reveal certain aspects of their personal life and not others...but they are seldom ALLOWED to do such today. KO is perpetuating that environment, but he certainly didn't create it.

    Posted by: LMAO at April 13, 2007 2:43 PM


    Well, he could talk about his "perceived rivals" without having to pressure them into sharing something they obviously don't wish to share. The fact that Cooper is a "rival" it's not an MSNBC or NBC employee that Olbermann is making his case about, speaks volumes about Olbermann's opportunism and of his nature in general.

    What better place to see that than in his dealings with colleagues in a business he claims to have esteemed since childhood.

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 13, 2007 3:23 PM "

    --------------------------------------------------

    I thought one of the concepts of civil rights for gays is that their sexuality is not the sum of their being. Just as it isnt for heterosexuals.

    If there was call from someone on the right for Anderson to come out, Olbermann would abhor that. This is just another example of his shallow and self-serving mode of reasoning.

    Journalists have discussed their personal lives and written autobiographys that don't delve into their bedrooms. How many interviewers would say to Barbara Walters, "Yes, you really broke barriers in your career and your mother was quite a stage mom, but what turns you on in bed?"

    Yeech...

    There's no compelling logic to the argument that Cooper has no moral claim to privacy since he has written about his personal life.

    Just keep it real, Olbermann, and say..."Hey, Coop, inquiring minds want to know"...

    Posted by: Cecelia at April 13, 2007 12:54 PM

    Wow--this thread might end up being over 200 posts long. Keep up the good work Cecelia!

    Oops--make that 300 posts long.

    "make that 300 posts long."

    Is this your version of winning in the 'ratings'?

    You really are amoral idiot.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 2:25 PM

    Takes one to know one, Sweetie.

    Perhpas we are all getting bogged down in the specifics, which really is not the point and in trying to get to the point we are exposing our personal "issues". (I'm sure you all assume mine being a socialist lesbian, BTW, I am a Liberal, so you can knock off the right wing label).

    The big picture is that Olbermann uses professional and personal attacks in the content his show, which may sometimes distort his "news facts"---hence the point of the recaps of this site; and personal attacks are especially used when he gives interviews. What is good for the goose is good for the gander. Robert has said on numberous occassions that OW bares some resemblence to the very tactics Olbermann employs. Olbermann has gotten ratings in part because of these tactics. It is good to have and want ratings. Robert Cox wants web traffic.

    I was watching one of my favorite movies the other day "All the President's Men" and as "deep throat" said to the "watergate" reporters:

    "you've got people feeling sorry for Haldeman now, I didn't think that was possible..."

    Perhaps I have done the same for Olbermann. HA! Lighten up people.

    Perhaps I have done the same for Olbermann. HA! Lighten up people.


    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 2:58 PM


    No, you've done the same AS Olbermann.

    You have a problem with him, attack HIM.

    And for goodness sakes quit trying to justify bashing Tur as being your fantasy rich-kid nemesis simply because you don't like him.

    Cats "BTW, I am a Liberal, so you can knock off the right wing label)."


    Calling you a commie is hardly a rightwing label.

    Cecelia, enough already. Get over it. I am sorry this topic stuck such a nerve for you, that you feel compelled to share nuggets of your personal life. If this thread goes to 1000, I will not let your condensending moralizing be the last word, (unless Robert decides to lock the thread with him having the last word---SINCE THIS IS HIS SITE!

    (Funny, OW uses the same tactics as Olbermann, duh!)

    VOK: come back from the "adult table" and continue the political debate, the cat fight seems to be over, and your brilliant posts & name calling are certainly missed here.

    Funny, OW uses the same tactics as Olbermann, duh!)

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 3:22 PM


    No, Bob never made your argument that Tur is a talentless rich-girl who deserves ill treatment or that Olbermann's sins justify ill treatment towards her.

    Rather he argues that she'll possibly benefit from the exposure.

    Pardon me, BCotes WHO ROBERT allows to post threads here says:

    Foot in the door somewhere? Huh? Katy's parents are Robert and Marika Tur, who broke the story on the LA Riots, shot the Reginald Denney beating and found OJ Simpson on his infamous slow-speed chase. And before she moved to NYC, Katy did have a foot in the door, in fact, you might say that she had her entire body in the door as her first job out of college, sans journalism degree, was as a producer at KTLA in Los Angeles. We are going to take a wild guess here that not many kids straight out of college, without a journalism degree land a job working at a television station in the second largest television market in the U.S. But I guess even that wasn't enough of a forward push for Ms. Tur, she dumped her boyfriend and took up with one Keith Olbermann. And she's telling us that's not even helping her? Well the mystery isn't too hard to figure out if you watch these videos. It's reassuring to know that no amount of connections can buy you talent and Ms. Tur seems singularly lacking in talent. Perhaps her best talents are off-camera?

    Save: It is best to ignore BCoates and Eschatz. They are just plainly beyond any possible hope of intellectual thought of any kind and are taking this website down the gutter.

    Pardon me, BCotes WHO ROBERT allows to post threads here says:

    Foot in the door somewhere? Huh? Katy's parents are Robert and Marika Tur, who broke the story on the LA Riots, shot the Reginald Denney beating and found OJ Simpson on his infamous slow-speed chase. And before she moved to NYC, Katy did have a foot in the door, in fact, you might say that she had her entire body in the door as her first job out of college, sans journalism degree, was as a producer at KTLA in Los Angeles. We are going to take a wild guess here that not many kids straight out of college, without a journalism degree land a job working at a television station in the second largest television market in the U.S. But I guess even that wasn't enough of a forward push for Ms. Tur, she dumped her boyfriend and took up with one Keith Olbermann. And she's telling us that's not even helping her? Well the mystery isn't too hard to figure out if you watch these videos. It's reassuring to know that no amount of connections can buy you talent and Ms. Tur seems singularly lacking in talent. Perhaps her best talents are off-camera?

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 3:39 PM

    With that logic Doug Krile who holds the opinion that Olbermann critics should just change the channel, speaks for OW.....

    Bob, has asked a variety of people from various perspectives to post.

    Funny how no one from Democratic Underground or Either Relevant or True stepped up to either comment on this, or even to provide any type of defense.

    Supersonic: Is Olbermann Watch making a civil rights crime? Something like that?

    Funny how no one from Democratic Underground or Either Relevant or True stepped up to either comment on this, or even to provide any type of defense.

    Posted by: Supersonic at May 16, 2007 3:58 PM


    They didn't! Oh, man...and they are my arbiters of what constitutes fairness and integrity too...

    Cecelia, I am sorry you have regrets posting some of your personal history---but I have already apologized for my earlier comments against Ms. Tur and for alerting Robert Cox to the updated link. I have also posted a nugget of my own personal information, that I have "issues" with the privileged class, therefore, one might call me a "class warfare socialist types" as you did. I owned up to this, and was fine with never coming back here again---but when I saw your condescending moralizing comments I was irritated enough to comment again, (believe me, I'm sorry I did).

    You can not have it both ways, you can not come to a website that exposes Olbermann's use of personal attacks and then chastise said owner and his posters and other bloggers on morality...it is truly the height of hypocrisy. I was half serious when I said I will not let you have the last word, but honestly, go ahead, have the last post. You seem to have a stomach for this kind of hypocrisy. I do not.

    The Olbermann Watch troupe keep on using Katy Tur's name like she is a war hero of some long drawn out battle. I feel sorry for the Turster, that her name had to get directly linked up to politics through Olbermann Watch just because she dated Keith Olbermann and was stood up by him (or worse...)

    Funny how no one from Democratic Underground or Either Relevant or True stepped up to either comment on this, or even to provide any type of defense.
    Posted by: Supersonic at May 16, 2007 3:58 PM

    The fan girls are loving every minute of this, trust me. I was dumb enough to think this would create a "blood bath" on their sites (as it has in the past) and would be very entertaining. Now they can copy and paste our comments and call me the "Kathy Bates" of OW. Time to get a new "hobby" HA!

    Cats,

    I don't have any regrets over anything I've posted and it certainly exposed some economic strata animus in you.

    I'm going to assume you mean by you words saying that I "can't" do something that you mean I can't do it logically. Because I can do what I've done and you can't stop. The site owner is only person who can do that.

    So let me address the logic reference of your claim.

    YOU can't logically call me a hypocrite and then argue that anything we do is okay because Olbermann did it first. Engaging in the same tactics you condemn and feeling that you are somehow justified in doing so, is THE ESSENCE of hypocrisy.

    Bob hasn't made that argument, not even poor dumb Brandon has made that argument.

    Obama/4:01 p.m.: no accusations of any civil rights crime. But usually when anything that relates to anything in Olbermann's personal life is posted and/or discussed, there's generally a more vituperative and vociferous outcry. Save the Cats/4:24 p.m. I think understood my puzzlement at the relative silence.

    Also, Obama 4:24 p.m.: Tur is living with Olbermann; he didn't dump her. You may perhaps be confusing Tur and Karmabites. No malice intended in this post; just clarifying.

    Feel better Cecelia.....good.

    Funny how the ultimate hypocrite is the one that chastises "hypocrites" for hypocrisy.
    (BTW: thanks for determining what a hypocrite is with your condensending morality).

    (I know I said I'd stop commenting, but I just want to see Brandon's thread get to 300 and beyond!)

    Feel better Cecelia.....good.

    Funny how the ultimate hypocrite is the one that chastises "hypocrites" for hypocrisy.
    (BTW: thanks for determining what a hypocrite is with your condensending morality).

    (I know I said I'd stop commenting, but I just want to see Brandon's thread get to 300 and beyond!)

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 5:05 PM


    A hypocrite is someone who turns around and does what he condemns. A bigger hypocrite then tries to justify that by saying the person they condemned did it first. Upon doing that, the ULTIMATE hypocrite then calls someone else a hypocrite for having pointed that out.

    Sound familiar?...yes, it's you....

    The motto of this site (and of the Bushies in general) is that it is not only permisable but advisable to deliberately drop to the ethical level of your adversaries when you encounter them. That's the only way you can win, don't you know? As such, I don't think save the cats can be faulted for getting all indignant about his or her right to act like an amoral dope.

    Go to. The adults give you permission to jump around like a little spaz and make fun of the icky icky cootie girls.

    Cecelia, you win the 300th post prize...you will be forced to "respond" to me again, HA!

    "calls someone else a hypocrite for having pointed that out." Like I said, "thanks for determining what a hypocrite is with your condensending morality."

    calls someone else a hypocrite for having pointed that out." Like I said, "thanks for determining what a hypocrite is with your condensending morality."

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 5:17 PM


    #301

    The shoe fits you and you wear it proudly.

    Welcome back VOK, please proceed with your political topic please...we are at the edge of our keyboards waiting for your wisdom and name calling.

    Go to. The adults give you permission to jump around like a little spaz and make fun of the icky icky cootie girls.

    Posted by: VOK at May 16, 2007 5:15 PM


    She says she's a liberal.

    I'm so relieved... :D

    Welcome back VOK, please proceed with your political topic please...we are at the edge of our keyboards waiting for your wisdom and name calling.

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 5:20 PM


    You're going to have to move fast, VOK, Cats has already has dibs on using "over-priviledged"... "spoiled"...."elitist"...and "hypocrite"

    A hypocrite is someone who turns around and does what he condemns. A bigger hypocrite then tries to justify that by saying the person they condemned did it first. Upon doing that, the ULTIMATE hypocrite then calls someone else a hypocrite for having pointed that out.

    Sound familiar?...yes, it's you....

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 5:11 PM
    Cecelia, you just described mickey to the"T." He just accused me of saying that I accused him of interjecting first, when in fact, he was doing that to other posters long before I ever made a single post here. I only was a reader for 3 or 4 months before I ever posted and saw him make accusations of interjecting then. As a matter of fact, he even accused you of doing it. Hypocrite, to say the least!

    Again, since Cecelia has trouble having her maid scroll up higher in this thread, from the keyboard of the Mr. Cox himself:

    Given all this, I am at a loss to understand why there are (currently) over 70 posts on this thread debating whether or not it is "fair" to post information, images, videos or links to/about her on this site since she is VERY PUBLICLY Keith Olbermann's significant other and they are both public people.

    As for the "crude" and/or misogynistic comments by some readers of this site. If you are asking for my vote I would vote for people not making those kinds of comments. Likewise I would like people to stop defending Keith Olbermann, stop trying to make every post a referendum on George Bush or Dick Cheney or the Iraq War. I would like people to always see my point of view, come to the same conclusions as me or admit when they are wrong.

    Guess what?

    That ain't happening. It's the nature of the kind of free and open discourse I want to encourage on this site.

    In conclusion, let me just note that we have not done posts about Keith's family or his friends when those people are not public people. We have also kept mentions of KarmaBites to an absolute minimum on this site - most discussion has been about why we DO NOT give her a lot of attention, the rest has been when the issue is made public in some significant way (e.g., Mark Levin, NY Post, etc.). In the case of KarmaBites that story is about a private matter and has no direct relation to what Keith says or does publicly. That might be different if Keith were doing special comments on the merits of celibacy or opposing pre-marital sex. That would be OlbyPocrisy and we would then cover it. If he had violated corporate policy at NBCUniversal that would be different. That has never turned out to be the case and so we have largely ignored that story.

    I am not really going to think very hard about whether this comment or my past statements are somehow in conflict with this. All I can tell you is that I do not see anything wrong with talking about Katy Tur on this site because she has chosen to be a public person and Keith Olbermann has chosen to push her even more into the spotlight.

    That alternative seems odd - that we should NOT mention Katy Tur on this site at all when she is very publicly in a relationship with the person who this site is all about.

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 12, 2007 9:48 PM

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 5:11 PM
    Cecelia, you just described mickey to the"T." He just accused me of saying that I accused him of interjecting first, when in fact, he was doing that to other posters long before I ever made a single post here. I only was a reader for 3 or 4 months before I ever posted and saw him make accusations of interjecting then. As a matter of fact, he even accused you of doing it. Hypocrite, to say the least!

    Posted by: royalking at May 16, 2007 5:31 PM


    Royal, does woogey...eh.. Mike have a thing for felines?... :D

    That alternative seems odd - that we should NOT mention Katy Tur on this site at all when she is very publicly in a relationship with the person who this site is all about.

    Posted by: Robert Cox at May 12, 2007 9:48 PM


    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 5:33 PM


    I know this is over your head, but Bob arguing that she's a public person and it's not wrong to have a thread about her, is different from your argument that she's a spoiled rich girl who deserves to be criticised and who deserves to have the same sort of treatment that Olbermann has dished out to others.

    She says she's a liberal.
    I'm so relieved... :D
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 5:24 PM
    You're going to have to move fast, VOK, Cats has already has dibs on using "over-priviledged"... "spoiled"...."elitist"...and "hypocrite"
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 5:29 PM

    I am so glad I can provided you some "relief"---all this mental masturbating must be very tiring for you. BTW your forgot to mention Bu$hwipe. Bu$hwipe.

    I do love a good cat fight. meeeoooww!

    is different from your argument that she's a spoiled rich girl who deserves to be criticised and who deserves to have the same sort of treatment that Olbermann has dished out to others.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 5:41 PM

    I was calling YOU the spoiled rich girl based on your past comments, but go ahead find my posts and twist away. I know you will, you can't help yourself. BTW: I have apologized twice for my TUR comments but keep on, keeping on Cecelia. Your spin, I mean your turn...

    am so glad I can provided you some "relief"---all this mental masturbating must be very tiring for you. BTW your forgot to mention Bu$hwipe. Bu$hwipe.

    I do love a good cat fight. meeeoooww!

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 5:43 PM


    Too bad you're not better at it.

    You just impugned your own ability to offer up a challenge with the "mental masturbation" thing.

    was calling YOU the spoiled rich girl based on your past comments, but go ahead find my posts and twist away. I know you will, you can't help yourself. BTW: I have apologized twice for my TUR comments but keep on, keeping on Cecelia. Your spin, I mean your turn...

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 5:48 PM


    Oh, I will. And when I get tired my maid will take you on. She over-qualified for that, but then who isn't...

    "I think we are all kind of delusional to think that the Katy Tur threads are going to hurt her or Olbermann in any way...or for that matter that they really care. These are people with wealth and to some degree power and have such a leg up on any competition. Ms. Tur will not be "unemployed" for long. Good grief, the least Olbermann should do for putting up with his saggy a$$, is secure her a JOB! The fact that she is going through this pretense sans journalism degree is laughable. What is also laughable is to believe that these priveliged pukes actually give a rat's ass what this blog posts and comments. Because if they do, they have bigger issues then any of us here. PEACE!
    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 14, 2007 12:58 PM "

    Cecelia
    I found the post (FROM TWO DAYS AGO)that I think got you so upset, (send the maid home). Yes as I have already said, that was a little harsh, so I hereby apologize (again) to Ms. Tur & Mr. Olbermann for assuming that their love was anything but genuine and for implying that Ms. Tur was not qualified to "work" I WAS WRONG!

    Thank you very much Cecelia for being the moral compass of OW and taking the time from your busy schedule to straighten me out. Your condensending moralizing will forever be greatly appreciated by me. *kiss* (or should I say *lick* being the sweet little kitty cat that I am.)


    Oh, I will. And when (If) I get tired my maid will take you on. She('s) over-qualified for that, but then who isn't...
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 5:55 PM

    Calm down, typo-queen, I have no doubt your maid is smarter than the both of us.

    Thank you very much Cecelia for being the moral compass of OW and taking the time from your busy schedule to straighten me out. Your condensending moralizing will forever be greatly appreciated by me. *kiss* (or should I say *lick* being the sweet little kitty cat that I am.)


    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 6:07 PM


    You're welcome. Now scat, cat....

    BTW Cecelia, just in case you stay on your high horse and seek out all my negative comments against Tur or Olbermann and re-post them here; I must say THANKS, because it will make it EASIER for both the Olby-Lovers & Haters to locate the the "amoral" poster and assign (justify) blame.

    If you decide not the seek & re-post, my apologizes to you for the assuming the worst. *lick*

    BTW Cecelia, just in case you stay on your high horse and seek out all my negative comments against Tur or Olbermann and re-post them here; I must say THANKS, because it will make it EASIER for both the Olby-Lovers & Haters to locate the the "amoral" poster and assign (justify) blame.

    If you decide not the seek & re-post, my apologizes to you for the assuming the worst. *lick*


    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 6:36 PM


    Well, I hadn't given it a second's thought, but since you're obviously worried about it, I'll consider doing it.

    >A hypocrite is someone who turns around and does what she condemns. A bigger hypocrite then tries to justify that by saying the person they condemned did it first. Upon doing that, the ULTIMATE hypocrite then calls someone else a hypocrite for having pointed that out.

    Sound familiar?

    Yes, of course. Sounds like the 'We only do to Keith what he does to others...." MO of this site that Cecelia holds so dear.

    Now that I've pointed that out, let the ultimate hypocrites come out of the woodwork and defend their hypocrisy.

    Yes, of course. Sounds like the 'We only do to Keith what he does to others...." MO of this site that Cecelia holds so dear.

    Now that I've pointed that out, let the ultimate hypocrites come out of the woodwork and defend their hypocrisy.

    Posted by: LMAO at May 16, 2007 6:59 PM


    Oh, please, the "others" as in those who Keith criticises would be lucky if he treated them like OW critics are treated here.

    They'd be allowed on his show...

    Jeez, I already said THANKS if you do this---believe me, no worries here. I see it as providing "community service" to the OW blog...and like I said already, "it will make it EASIER for both the Olby-Lovers & Haters to locate the the "amoral" poster and assign (justify) blame." Onward Ms. Cecelia, onward Christian soldier...

    I wonder if we can get this thread up to 400 with our pithy comments? I have a feeling....Robert stop us, stop ME before I do more harm to the reputation of OW!)

    Jeez, I already said THANKS if you do this---believe me, no worries here. I see it as providing "community service" to the OW blog...and like I said already, "it will make it EASIER for both the Olby-Lovers & Haters to locate the the "amoral" poster and assign (justify) blame." Onward Ms. Cecelia, onward Christian soldier...

    I wonder if we can get this thread up to 400 with our pithy comments? I have a feeling....Robert stop us, stop ME before I do more harm to the reputation of OW!)

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 7:08 PM


    "Justify blame", huh.... even now you're calculating a defense based upon Olbermann's treatment of his door man...

    "Justify blame", huh.... even now you're calculating a defense based upon Olbermann's treatment of his door man...
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 7:14 PM

    Good Grief Cecelia, sorry in advance for the name calling but you really ARE a humorless shrew... BTW I don't think you properly responded to LMAO...run along..compose some more of those terrific condesending moral comments you are so good at.

    (yes I thought it was harsh when someone called you a humorless shrew in an earlier post, put like you said, if the shoe fits...)

    Good Grief Cecelia, sorry in advance for the name calling but you really ARE a humorless shrew... BTW I don't think you properly responded to LMAO...run along..compose some more of those terrific condesending moral comments you are so good at.

    (yes I thought it was harsh when someone called you a humorless shrew in an earlier post, put like you said, if the shoe fits...)

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 7:27 PM


    Since you're the one who has justified your actions by saying that you are only doing what Olbermann does, you should respond to LMAO's statement.

    No Sweetie, you are the moral authority here...respond.....1...2...3....go!

    Excellent! Cecelia still has her knickers in a wad over this. Keep up coming girls. I'm enjoying the fighting.

    No Sweetie, you are the moral authority here...respond.....1...2...3....go!

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 7:40 PM


    Well, sure. Keith Olbermann would be the moral authority when in your company.

    Excellent! Cecelia still has her knickers in a wad over this. Keep up coming girls. I'm enjoying the fighting.

    Posted by: Brandon at May 16, 2007 7:43 PM


    Poor Brandon. This is the closest he's ever gotten to passion from women in his life.

    >Oh, please, the "others" as in those who Keith criticises would be lucky if he treated them like OW critics are treated here.

    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 7:04 PM

    If 'How OW treats it's critics' was the issue, I'd have to agree with you, Cecelia, but that's not the issue I raised. I can't be too terribly surprised you missed it, you probably didn't get enough sleep last night.

    Put the straw man to bed, Cecelia. Then, reread my post, and fulfill your obligation (as you put it) as the 'Ultimate Hypocrite.'

    Calling Olbermann names of his making (while criticizing him for it), then saying it's okay because he did it first (or saying it's okay because we only do it to him), then taking me to task for pointing it out.....

    Your original post about what makes a hypocrite, a bigger hypocrite, and the ultimate hypocrite is fairly lucid for a Cecelia post. Too bad the focus of your lucidity was only trained on others. But that's sort of the mindset of a hypocrite, isn't it?

    Perhaps a double cappucino would be in order to go with your double standards.

    Maybe that'll wake you up...

    Brandon, be careful when taking "enjoyment" from our cat fight. Cecelia may consider you amoral for your pleasure in our comment masturbation. Come on Cecelia, if you don't mind, I don't mind if Brandon watches. *lick*

    Calling Olbermann names of his making (while criticizing him for it), then saying it's okay because he did it first (or saying it's okay because we only do it to him), then taking me to task for pointing it out.....

    Your original post about what makes a hypocrite, a bigger hypocrite, and the ultimate hypocrite is fairly lucid for a Cecelia post. Too bad the focus of your lucidity was only trained on others. But that's sort of the mindset of a hypocrite, isn't it?

    Perhaps a double cappucino would be in order to go with your double standards.

    Maybe that'll wake you up...

    Posted by: LMAO at May 16, 2007 7:50 PM


    Perhaps a shot of vodka would help you make sense. You call Roger Ailes a "fatass" when you're fat.... you're a hypocrite... Olbermann deemed himself as much and apologized for it.

    However, that is still different in kind from calling someone deplorable after they've called you deplorable.... what we're talking about here is justifying calling Olbermann's love interest names because you don't like him, or because that's what he did to somone else.

    Perhaps you need a double brandy and a day to keep up...

    Brandon, be careful when taking "enjoyment" from our cat fight. Cecelia may consider you amoral for your pleasure in our comment masturbation. Come on Cecelia, if you don't mind, I don't mind if Brandon watches. *lick*

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 7:50 PM

    You and Brandon started long ago, around the time you mentioned the "fan girls", I'm sure.

    Ya'll go ahead.

    Well, sure. Keith Olbermann would be the moral authority when in your company.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 7:46 PM

    As compared to Olbermann Watch? Perhaps, while in your company here, I should bask in YOUR condesending moral authority...oh I forgot, you said this earlier:

    "a degree in journalism is not essential or even especially respected in the industry.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 15, 2007 8:44 PM"

    In the words of the Guinness Boys: BRILLIANT!

    Cecelia, as you drink your Guinness, would you like some pretzels with that logic ?

    As compared to Olbermann Watch? Perhaps, while in your company here, I should bask in YOUR condesending moral authority...oh I forgot, you said this earlier:

    "a degree in journalism is not essential or even especially respected in the industry.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 15, 2007 8:44 PM"

    In the words of the Guinness Boys: BRILLIANT!

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 8:05 PM


    Yer welcome, yet again...

    Cecelia, as you drink your Guinness, would you like some pretzels with that logic ?

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 8:08 PM


    Haven't you made pretzels out of logic quite enough in your life.

    Cecelia, this has been fun (in a tortured kinda way). I think LMAO is still waiting for an answer, but don't worry...s/he thinks you are LUCID in a misguided hypocritical double-standard kind of way...please, do not worry....I can be the offical AMORAL poster of OW. I feel "warm & tingley" already....nighty night.

    Move along people...cat fight offically over.

    Move along people...cat fight officially over.

    freakin' typos...argh!

    Cecelia, this has been fun (in a tortured kinda way). I think LMAO is still waiting for an answer, but don't worry...s/he thinks you are LUCID in a misguided hypocritical double-standard kind of way...please, do not worry....I can be the offical AMORAL poster of OW. I feel "warm & tingley" already....nighty night.

    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 8:24 PM


    Well, you officially are that indeed, I'd be hard pressed to find such mean and convoluted excuses for berating a young woman like the ones you have made.... but I knew you weren't "officially" lucid when you thought I might bother to cut-n-paste all of that... :D

    :D
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 8:33 PM

    I love it when the moral authority makes happy faces, so much more polite.

    "a degree in journalism is not essential or even especially respected in the industry.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 15, 2007 8:44 PM"

    I love re-posting your line because it really says it all. So good that you can alleviate Ms.Tur's job search anxiety with this terrific bit of advice.

    But I guess, since you say it nicer (than anything I said, your perception of what I said & that I have regretted what I said), it must be more right (moral). Jeez, how you must love riding that high horse of yours. Now I really have to go! Night!

    "a degree in journalism is not essential or even especially respected in the industry.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 15, 2007 8:44 PM"

    I love re-posting your line because it really says it all. So good that you can alleviate Ms.Tur's job search anxiety with this terrific bit of advice. "

    I believe her point on this matter is that not having a degree is not a barrier to employment in journalism (see Peter Jennings who was a high school drop out).

    And you certainly can be a good writer or have the others skills needed to succeed in journalism without having a degree.

    I don't think Bob Cox's degree is in Economics and not in jounralism or writing, yet it does not seem to stop him.

    I think (that is) Bob Cox's degree is in Economics and not in jounralism or writing. Yet it does not seem to stop him.

    "Welcome back VOK, please proceed with your political topic please...we are at the edge of our keyboards waiting for your wisdom and name calling."

    At the Republican debate, Rep. Paul tried to express what I consider to be a basic tenet of strategic thinking. I don't think that Paul truly believes that we caused 9/11, or that we "invited" it. He is just pointing out that our actions have repercussions, and that recently, the Republican Party (and the nation generally) have refused to consider those repercussions when formulating foreign policy.

    That the United States should: (i) consider how its actions will be interpreted by others; (ii) predict what actions others are likely to take as a result; and (iii) adjust our actions accordingly is not an invitation to be attacked, but the most basic form of strategic analysis, familiar to every chess and World-of-Warcraft player the world over.

    The most appalling moment of the debate for me was Guilani's reaction to Paul. Rather than acknowledging the need for strategic thinking in our foreign policy, but then disagreeing with Paul's conclusions, Guilani chose a crass, politically-motivated, and mean-spirited sound-bite. Apparently to Guilani and the rest of the Republican hopefuls, trying to understand our enemies, how they view us, how they will interpret our actions, and how our actions should change as a result, is a sign of cowardice.

    Oh, and also, save the cats is just like a teacher in the summertime.... No class.

    (This post with apologies to that guy with the hat pulled down over his eyes from the Cosby Kids, et al.)

    VOK, your insight and superior ability to see and understand principaled nuance, and then put it into words....is refreshing.

    Please keep posting! I really enjoy your posts, and there are many here who could learn from them, including myself.

    Where's the barf bag? OMG!

    "Apparently to Guilani and the rest of the Republican hopefuls, trying to understand our enemies, how they view us",
    Posted by: VOK at May 17, 2007 10:49 AM

    vokie, Rudy DOES understand our enemy. They want to kill ALL of us. You don't seem to understand that, even with your 'superior ability to see bla, bla, bla.' I love the fact you liberals pile on the 'Paul' bandwagon at the drop of a "sound bite" and at the first inclination of defending the enemy. You fools can have him!

    "They want to kill ALL of us. You don't seem to understand that,"

    Jeff does have a function on this site: he serves to illustrate how dangerous thinking in such simplistic terms as he does really can be.

    Jeff and his ilk keep screaming hysterically at us how "we just don't understand the threat"...but in the process of doing that, people like Jeff always tend to shine a beacon on just how little they understand themselves.

    Spin, spin, deny, deny, poor fools.

    You're right mickey, the fact the radical muslims want to kill us is pretty "simple." Yet, you fools don't get it, that says a lot.

    Oh, and also, save the cats is just like a teacher in the summertime.... No class.Posted by: VOK at May 17, 2007 10:49 AM

    Get over it and give it a rest already...

    \rylkng_ignor

    I don't agree with Ron Paul on about half of his ideology, because it is a bit purist and fails to understand some "tragedy of the commons" issues. He is a libertarian. What's hilarious though is that every run-of-the-mill "intellectual" Republican will tell you that they are really "libertarian" and that "libertarian" principles are the core of the party. As I remember, that "A soldier's perspective" guy said he was one.

    But when it actually comes to what those principles are, especially profound respect for human rights and separation of church and state, they screetch like banshies. "WHAAAT??! NOT TORTURE PEOPLE??!!! GAY MARRIAGE?! NOT IN MY CHRISTIAN COUNTRY!! SCREEEEECH"

    Call him coocoo all you want, but don't come back and tell me you are a libertarian then. The Bush crowd is pro-big government, pro-fear, and pro-torture.

    "vokie, Rudy DOES understand our enemy. They want to kill ALL of us."

    AHHHHHHHHHRRRGGGG!!! The terrorists are coming!!! Eeeek, I'm so scared I just pooped my pants and signed away all my civil rights and moral authority to Czar Rudy the Torturous and Mit "Double Gitmo" Romney.

    /rylkng_ignor

    Evading the topic with a childish rant/diversion, an olbyloon tactic for sure.

    Jeff sez: VOK was "evading the topic"

    Wrong again Jeff: he hit it head on, just like he usually does.

    But forgive him if VOK feels like he has to step down several notches from his usual high literacy standards to a level of hyperbole you can actually understand.... whenever he is addressing YOU.

    "vokie, Rudy DOES understand our enemy. They want to kill ALL of us."

    AHHHHHHHHHRRRGGGG!!! The terrorists are coming!!! Eeeek, I'm so scared I just pooped my pants and signed away all my civil rights and moral authority to Czar Rudy the Torturous and Mit "Double Gitmo" Romney.

    /rylkng_ignor


    Posted by: VOK at May 17, 2007 2:57 PM
    Is this what you call "hitting the nail on the head" on olbyplanet? Must be.

    Yes, of course. Sounds like the 'We only do to Keith what he does to others...." MO of this site that Cecelia holds so dear.
    Now that I've pointed that out, let the ultimate hypocrites come out of the woodwork and defend their hypocrisy.
    Posted by: LMAO at May 16, 2007 6:59 PM

    >Oh, please, the "others" as in those who Keith criticises would be lucky if he treated them like OW critics are treated here.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 7:04 PM

    If 'How OW treats it's critics' was the issue, I'd have to agree with you, Cecelia, but that's not the issue I raised. I can't be too terribly surprised you missed it, you probably didn't get enough sleep last night.
    Put the straw man to bed, Cecelia. Then, reread my post, and fulfill your obligation (as you put it) as the 'Ultimate Hypocrite.'
    Calling Olbermann names of his making (while criticizing him for it), then saying it's okay because he did it first (or saying it's okay because we only do it to him), then taking me to task for pointing it out.....
    Your original post about what makes a hypocrite, a bigger hypocrite, and the ultimate hypocrite is fairly lucid for a Cecelia post. Too bad the focus of your lucidity was only trained on others. But that's sort of the mindset of a hypocrite, isn't it?
    Perhaps a double cappucino would be in order to go with your double standards.
    Maybe that'll wake you up...
    Posted by: LMAO at May 16, 2007 7:50 PM

    LMAO gets the BIG picture. I will forever make sure s/he has the last word in this comment thread.

    BTW: STCs originally brought this point up first, so Cecelia is not as "lucid" as you originally gave her credit for. But then again, who is on this site.

    You can not have it both ways, you can not come to a website that exposes Olbermann's use of personal attacks and then chastise said owner and his posters and other bloggers on morality...it is truly the height of hypocrisy.
    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 4:17 PM

    Funny how the ultimate hypocrite is the one that chastises "hypocrites" for hypocrisy.
    (BTW: thanks for determining what a hypocrite is with your condensending morality).
    Posted by: Save the Cats! at May 16, 2007 5:05 PM

    Maybe LMAO was referring to this:

    A hypocrite is someone who turns around and does what he condemns. A bigger hypocrite then tries to justify that by saying the person they condemned did it first. Upon doing that, the ULTIMATE hypocrite then calls someone else a hypocrite for having pointed that out.
    Sound familiar?...yes, it's you....
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 16, 2007 5:11 PM

    you are correct...the original post from LMAO:

    >A hypocrite is someone who turns around and does what she condemns. A bigger hypocrite then tries to justify that by saying the person they condemned did it first. Upon doing that, the ULTIMATE hypocrite then calls someone else a hypocrite for having pointed that out.

    Sound familiar?

    Yes, of course. Sounds like the 'We only do to Keith what he does to others...." MO of this site that Cecelia holds so dear.

    Now that I've pointed that out, let the ultimate hypocrites come out of the woodwork and defend their hypocrisy.

    Posted by: LMAO at May 16, 2007 6:59 PM

    Wow, these are really bad videos. Forget all the stuff about whether we should we be dragging Olbermann's girlfriend into the discussion. But, if you spend some time watching her videos, they really are very vapid and she has really poor diction for TV. (I would think good diction is very important for TV). Plus, when she says her own name, it almost sounds like "Katy TURD." I think a good advisor would have her change her name before she even started. Again, wow...Olbermann's girlfriend or not, those videos are real bad.

    She probably hopes to change her last name to O-L-B-E-R-M-A-N-N.

    "a degree in journalism is not essential or even especially respected in the industry.
    Posted by: Cecelia at May 15, 2007 8:44 PM"

    I love re-posting your line because it really says it all. So good that you can alleviate Ms.Tur's job search anxiety with this terrific bit of advice. "

    I believe her point on this matter is that not having a degree is not a barrier to employment in journalism (see Peter Jennings who was a high school drop out).

    And you certainly can be a good writer or have the others skills needed to succeed in journalism without having a degree.

    Posted by: craigs at May 16, 2007 9:17 PM

    Yeah, that may make sense but not in the CONTEXT of THIS thread. Watch the videos, this chick is no Peter Jennings. Plus she's a real bad writer. (See the "Actual Photos of Katy Tur" thread to read a sample of her writing). After reading this thread's comments, Cecelia has some serious issues. (Puts the rest of her comments on other threads into perspective...she really needs get off the morality kick). Wow, indeed.