Liberals can be lame too…

Growing up as a democrat, it was easy to laugh at Limbaugh or Coulter or Hannity–they always seemed to be frothing at the mouth at worst or unfunny, stiff, and arrogant at best. I even remember reading Al Franken’s Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot in elementary school, before I knew it had anything to do with politics. I just liked Franken because he was Stuart Smalley, the friendly self-helper from Saturday Night Live. Later on in life I grew a fondness for Michael Moore. I mean, come on–you may not agree with his ideas, or even his methods, but he is a lovable guy. And he’s funny. Basically, I liked the liberals because they were funnier. Think of that what you will. I suppose humor is important to me. Maybe more than health care or global warming.

Lately, however, the liberals have been doing their best to act like bigoted ignorant neanderthals. Lawrence O’Donnell and Keith Olbermann* can now officially join the excusive group of Limbaugh, Coulter, and Rosie O’Donnell, (are they related?). Whether the entire media is slanted to the left is still up for debate in my opinion, but MSNBC seems to be doing their best to balance out FOX News.

O’Donnell’s tirade on Mormonism
Olbermann’s
O’Donnell further making a fool of himself
(I would go into detail about each of these and why I thought they were lame, but that might take a while. If you want to talk about one of them specifically, I would love to hear it.)

Where have the compassionate, caring, and NONprejudice liberals gone? I’m sure there are some out there.

Hugh Nibley was my kind of democrat. One who ACTUALLY practiced his ideals, unlike O’Donnell, for example, who calls himself a socialist–yet he seems to be living a nice rich actor/commentator’s life. I have little respect for anyone with extreme political beliefs on either side who lives on more than they need.

*NOTE (12/16) – Due to some feedback, I just watched the Olbermann clip again, and have to say I was not fair to him, nor accurate in my assessment. He may be smug, but he did not say anything bigoted against Mormonism. My mistake.

Advertisements

About shenpa warrior

"Patience is not learned in safety." View all posts by shenpa warrior

6 responses to “Liberals can be lame too…

  • Anonymous

    When you say “Rosie O’Donnell” do you mean “Lawrence O’Donnell” or has Rosie done something to make your list as well?

  • adam

    No, I meant Rosie. To her credit, she can be funny at times, but she makes the list (I guess I have a list now?) with her over-the-top rants on 9/11 and The Donald…

    I don’t know if I like that I have a list… In fact, it may be opposite of what I normally try to do–trying really hard to read diverse opinions (see this post.

    For the record, I’ll probably still tune into Rush, MSNBC, and even Lawrence O’Donnell, because I just can’t stop listening to people I disagree with. It’s a blessing, and a curse.

  • Concrete Fiction

    I went to Wikipedia to confirm that it was the same Lawrence O’Donnell who wrote for The West Wing (it is), and I found this statement:

    “Recently appointed King Douche bag and Senior Vice President of the church Apathy and Douchebagery.”

    That got me a laugh.

    I may think that O’Donnell is a hypocritical squeezebox, but the fact is, his beliefs may not be a minority among non-LDS people who don’t understand the church’s policies or contexts, divinely or historically.

    Frankly, I agree that the 1890 manifesto was probably a political decision. I don’t believe the 1978 decision to include African-Americans in the Priesthood was divinely inspired, but rather has to do with politics and acceptance within the church membership and racism within some of the apostles. I don’t think this makes them bad people – but frankly, racism within people who were born before and around the beginning of the Twentieth Century doesn’t surprise me because I can put it into context – the laws and norms of this country were stupifyingly racist until the mid-1960’s and beyond. All this and I’m still a Mormon, though I guess O’Donnell would consider me a racist, mysoginist, rapist-apologist.

    I think O’Donnell is a soundbiting, opportunist who is afraid of Romney getting the nomination and is scared of people with religious beliefs and values because he doesn’t understand them. But I loved The West Wing and I’m still going to watch Big Love.

    With Olbermann though, I don’t see him as being in the same class as O’Donnell. True, he gave no props to Mitt’s speech, but his concerns have some merit, considering what Mitt said about freedom requiring religion and his condescending attitudes in the speech toward secularism.

    But I think O’Donnell is funny and have fond memories of watching Sports Center with him and Dan Patrick.

    Hypocrites are everywhere, especially in politics. This is why I refuse to align myself with a party.

  • adam

    Thanks for your comments. You’re probably right on Olbermann’s comments–he just seemed a little smugly inaccurate. I don’t mind when people are inaccurate if the are unassuming. It’s when they blow a gasket (like O’Donnell) or appear to be quite pleased with themselves (like Olbermann) that I tend to get annoyed.

    As for the 1890 or 1978 events, I have no problem with politics being involved. And I don’t think God does either. I think the origin of the priesthood ban was racist, and I also STRONGLY believe that anything good in the world is inspired. I would recommend you read Arrington’s take on the 1978 revelation in Adventures of a Church Historian, David O’McKay’s earlier efforts to repeal the ban in the Prince/Wright book, or Pres. Kimball’s own experiences with the revelation. Very insightful. If you’ve already read those, then great! They’re really good books–in my top 5 of Mormon history books I think.

    “his beliefs may not be a minority among non-LDS people”

    This is very sad to me. It’s NOT just an LDS issue either. It’s prejudice, and it is everywhere.

  • Anonymous

    Hello

    “Lawrence O’Donnell and Keith Olbermann can now officially join the excusive group of…”

    If Olbermann criticized the LDS faith, I did not see it in that clip you linked. He criticised Romney for wrapping himself in the American flag and proclaiming with [figurative] bible in hand that True Americans are Christian.

    O’Donnell went off the handle, and tainted legitimate questions with his tirade, but Olbermann? He did not even touch on the LDS faith.

    ” It’s NOT just an LDS issue either. It’s prejudice, and it is everywhere.”

    Sure, but the LDS Church doctrine, prophets, and leaders are supposed to be better than that. If the One True Church has been wrong on race relations, then what other doctrine is wrong?

    q

  • adam

    q –

    On Olbermann–I just watched the clip again. I feel somewhat embarassed now–you are right. Olbermann may be smug, but he didn’t say anything offensive. I don’t know what I was thinking before, (probably I originally watched it right after the O’Donnell clip and saw things that weren’t there).

    “the LDS Church doctrine, prophets, and leaders are supposed to be better than that.”

    Better than what? Also, why?

    “If the One True Church has been wrong on race relations, then what other doctrine is wrong?”

    That is a legitimate question. One that I think about. Not so generally as you put it, but more specifically. If one believes in what the church teaches, and also believes that some of it was a mistake or incorrect, than naturally the next question is “what else is wrong?” The only answer I have to that is another question: Does the ‘One True Church’ have to be right on everything? If yes, then why? Also, is it possible for a church to be right on everything?

    To me, an illuminating paradox on this issue is that of strict obedience to the words of Mormon authorities, and a radical freedom of belief to discover truth for oneself. Both have been stressed heavily by church leaders.

    One example (and there are many):
    Brigham Young: “I am more afraid that this people have so much confidence in their leaders that they will not inquire for themselves of God whether they are led by him.”

    Discussing the Inquiring for oneself of God gets us into the spiritual category, however. And of course, subjective spiritual experiences can’t be proven.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: