Wednesday, September 27, 2006

N.Y. Post Jests About Terrorist Threat

Keith Olbermann was the recipient of a letter containing a white powder yesterday. The incident, which is still under investigation by the FBI, was flippantly reported in an account riddled with error in today's New York Post:


September 27, 2006 -- MSNBC loudmouth Keith Olbermann flipped out when he opened his home mail yesterday. The acerbic host of "Countdown with Keith Olbermann" was terrified when he opened a suspicious-looking letter with a California postmark and a batch of white powder poured out. A note inside warned Olbermann, who's a frequent critic of President Bush's policies, that it was payback for some of his on-air shtick. The caustic commentator panicked and frantically called 911 at about 12:30 a.m., sources told The Post's Philip Messing. An NYPD HazMat unit rushed to Olbermann's pad on Central Park South, but preliminary tests indicated the substance was harmless soap powder. However, that wasn't enough to satisfy Olbermann, who insisted on a checkup. He asked to be taken to St. Luke's Hospital, where doctors looked him over and sent him home. Whether they gave him a lollipop on the way out isn't known. Olbermann had no comment.

On tonight's Countdown broadcast Olbermann disputes this telling of the event, and questions how the N.Y. Post was able to learn of the incident.

"It's interesting too that Murdoch's paper was able to get a jump on this story so quickly -- nearly as quickly, as if they'd known it was coming."

The FBI has asked that details of the threat to Olbermann not be revealed pending investigation.

Olbermann reminds us in his comments this evening, that NBC along with other news outlets, had complied with a request from Fox News to downplay the recent kidnapping of a Fox reporter and photographer. Their safe return may have been partly the result of the kidnappers not realizing that their targets had face recognition.

N.Y. Post and Fox Network are both owned by Rupert Murdoch, whose media outlets are slanted and biased to present the agenda of the Republican Reich.


The Libertarian Guy (tm) said...

It's wrong when ANYone threatens their "enemies". And don't think this just comes from one side.

Betty B. said...

Lib Guy,

I'm not sure what you refer to, as you are not giving concrete example. Olbermann did not make light of the kidnapping of Fox personnel, and I find the N.Y. Post's attitude in this matter to be quite curious.

The Libertarian Guy (tm) said...

I'm saying it's wrong when one side sends threats to the others' spokesmen.

Olbermann is a smarmy, irritating dickweed, but he doesn't deserve death threats. And if Chris Wallace gets death threats, THAT will be *just* as wrong.

Flinging barbs and poo-filled pies at each other is one thing, but much as I enjoy watching the libs v. cons slugfests, even I draw the line at this kind of behavior.

Betty B. said...

Lib Guy,

You said "Olbermann is a smarmy, irritating dickweed"

I think I've described Olbermann as a passionate and eloquent voice for the progressive/liberal viewpoint.

So, from where you sit, who best speaks for the Libertarians?

The Libertarian Guy (tm) said...

Let me clarify something here: I don't like Olbermann, and stand by my assessment of him, but I also have the same opinion of Sean Hannity. Both are cheerleaders for their causes, and slant their opinions almost exclusively to the point where self-criticism is virtually non-existent. Hannity begrudgingly points out right-wing foibles; I have not heard Olbermann skewer his sides' mistakes and bad points, as I can only stand a few minutes of his schtick.

As for your last question... if you're talking about market share, it would be Boortz (although he's not a 100-percenter libertarian); if you're talking about purity of libertarian message, I'd go with Walter E. Williams, although he doesn't describe himself as libertarian.

There are a few others who come to mind - Lowell Ponte, Lew Rockwell, William F. Buckley (somewhat)... but there's no one person who stands out as a "libertarian spokesman" b/c there are several flavors of libertarianism.

But they all add up to, and contribute to, the central theme of libertarian philosophy: The government-as-universal-panacea model is not a desirable one in the long run. Any government that can "give" you health care, can tell you HOW to live, what to eat, and demand that you exercise and diet according to their dictates. Any gov't that can give you ANYTHING, can take anything AWAY from you.

That's why we exist. We don't want any of that nonsense.