Olbermann: Leftist anchor of the low-rated countdown, Keith Olbermann gets into a heated email exchange with a tv producer who calls the show a "travesty". Olbermann has been on the case of election fraud especially in Ohio, even though nothing has been found except what is parrotted by tin foil moonbats. It hasn't translated into ratings and the fact he is the only one covering it to him proves there is no liberal media. "3. The American media has a liberal bias: I think we can pretty much put this one to bed. The mainstream media has so tiptoed around the voting irregularities stories that it’s deflated any reasonable belief that there are swarms of reporters bypassing facts to substitute their own agendas. Instead of a circus, the Conyers “voting forums” have received tepid coverage. Had there been a reversal of the poles in this political equation, of course, the impenetrable Sean Hannity would be in his 49th consecutive day of broadcasting without sleep, and by now would’ve already announced that Democrats from Outer Space had stolen the election. " Lets go back to Rather and the fake memos, and the claim then that because ABC and NBC were going after this story against Rather, this proved there was no liberal bias. Wrong, they went after that story because while they are all liberal, they are also a business, and if you can cut down one of your competitors, so be it. The second reason is if they did NOT pursue the fake memos, what is left of mainstream media credibility would have been shot to hell. The second reason why no one gives a damn about these tin foil theories that Olbermann is pushing because there is no story and it makes no sense going on and on about fairy tales. Washington Post on November 11th as an example went over them and declared them bunk. "Ultimately, none of the most popular theories holds up to close scrutiny. And the people who most stand to benefit from the conspiracy theories -- the Kerry campaign and the Democratic National Committee -- are not biting. "
John Kerry: Kerry still can't catch a break as the 31 electoral votes from New York has his name as "John L. Kerry"(loser?) and the popular far left website Daily Kos wants him shot. More from Justoneminute and Instapundit.
UK: Jonathan Freedland of the Guardian writes about Sikhs in Birmingham who got a play shut down because they claimed it was an insult to them. He realizes the awful truth about Liberals trying to play both sides. "The conflict played out in Birmingham, and elsewhere every day, is between two values - one that liberals have cherished for centuries and another acquired much more recently. The ancient, almost defining liberal ideal is freedom: of expression, of movement, of protest. The newer value is an approach to society's minorities that aims to go beyond mere tolerance, and reaches for understanding and sensitivity. Today's good liberal aims to be both. Stop one in the street and ask if artists should have the right to say what they like, and the answer will be yes. Ask if Muslims or Sikhs or Jews have the right to have their feelings respected, their differences understood, and the answer will be yes again. " "....Until now, too many progressives have sought to muddle through, to pretend that this tension does not exist. But just as Isaiah Berlin once forced the left to see that freedom and equality were very often at odds, so it is time for today's liberals to be honest - and admit that the ideals they have clumsily bolted together for three decades often chafe badly. Sometimes one of them is sacrificed for the sake of the other. Better to admit it and to decide consciously which value we are preferring in this case or that, than to pretend there is no conflict. Hard-headed liberalism means hard choices. " ...and the choice that he makes is? "Such is the landscape we now inhabit. The choices are not simple, but they need to be faced with rigour. So when the Dutch film-maker Theo van Gogh was murdered by an Islamist extremist, no liberal should have done anything but condemn it completely. This was not just censorship of the most brutal kind, it was also a heinous crime, murder. And yet some progressives found it hard to condemn the killing unequivocally, because van Gogh had so extravagantly violated the newer liberal value of cultural sensitivity: he had gone out of his way to offend Muslims (and Jews, for that matter) in wild, unrestrained language. In their urge to stand with Muslims as an oppressed group, many liberals let their judgment be clouded. They somehow construed the murder as if it were, say, a political attempt to block a van Gogh film or cancel a play - as if this was on a par with the Behzti affair. They might indeed want to back the offended group in such a situation, preferring the progressive's respect for the marginalised minority to the liberal principle of free speech, but this was not that situation: this was a murder. Again, it's clarity and rigour that's needed. I am having to make some of these awkward choices myself. All of my instincts set me against the government's proposed move to outlaw incitement to religious hatred. An admirer of America's first amendment, I start as an absolutist on free speech: let everyone say what they want. Once politicians or lawyers start deciding what's acceptable and what isn't, the trouble begins. But that position would, applied consistently, require me to call for the abolition of the current law banning incitement to racial hatred. And yet, though that law places a limit on free speech, I cannot deny that it has done more good than harm. It has helped establish a social norm in Britain, rendering the once acceptable racism of the 1970s beyond the pale today." In the end, a Liberal will choose political correctness even though he knows it's wrong. These incitement laws and P.C. thinking do more harm than good, it pushes the hatred underground, out of the public eye to give off this facade that everything is great. All it takes is an event to make the whole thing explode like it did with Van Gogh's murder in Holland.