Originally Posted By DlandDug >>Huh? So how did Olbermann tie Iraq to 9/11? All he did was criticize Bush for doing it. His comments were a reaction to what Bush and others have done. You're criticizing him for THAT?<< My criticism is detailed in previous posts. Olbermann's connection of the aftermath of 9/11 to Bush's policy in Iraq is absurd.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I don't mean this to be snotty (really I don't), but you don't have to pass that area every day. I moved out of NYC partly because I couldn't handle being downtown at all.<< I don't think this observation is at all snotty. Everyone has a different reaction when confronted with the WTC site. Yours is informed by some very powerful, personal memories. >>New York is resilient. We should have been able to focus on the common goal, and realize that squabbling is doing a disservice to the city and the whole country. That didn't happen.<< New York certainly is resilent. I would suggest that squabbling is a part of that resilence. I do agree that this issue should have brought New Yorkers together more easily.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>In the network coverage of the anniversary, there was a very sad story.<< Here it is: <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=2420815&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312" target="_blank">http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/stor y?id=2420815&CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312</a> EXCERPT: >>Beneath a noisy Manhattan highway under a gleaming white tent, sit three large sacred containers. They hold 14,000 carefully wrapped human remains from the terror attacks on the World Trade Center that are too small or too scattered to name. A few feet away sit a group of pews and a simple altar with space for the 1,151 families who were never given anything to bury when their loved ones were lost on Sept. 11, 2001.<< The article goes on to explain that these unidentified remains will be placed in a crypt that will also be a state-of-the-art forensic lab, a part of the WTC memorial site. I agree that there have been inexcusable delays in the work that needs to be done. But I can also understand the unprecedented circumstances that have prompted these delays. There were some who insisted that the site be preserved exclusively as a memorial to the dead. Others insisted it should be rebuilt exactly as it was before the attack, as a show of defiance. Other reactions, in many cases just as insistent, have covered the gamut between these extremes. The committee that has been balancing the needs of all these valid constituencies has been making progress, but it has certainly been slow.
Originally Posted By jonvn "Then I obviously misunderstood the intent of this post:" IF you took that as being about you personally, then yes. It was about what you said.
Originally Posted By TheRedhead There was a fascinating article recently in New York magazine that went through exactly what has happened in the planning. I could barely read it I got so angry. I think people forget that this group actually did come up with a plan for Ground Zero. They allowed everyone and his firefighting cousin to have a say in what should go there. The final result was such an ugly monstrosity which appealed to NO ONE that they scrapped all their work and started from square one. Years of work were thrown completely out. They needed a leader. They had none.
Originally Posted By ecdc "Olbermann's connection of the aftermath of 9/11 to Bush's policy in Iraq is absurd." No it isn't, not by a longshot. What's absurd was the administration's lame attempt to tie 9/11 to anything and everything but what actually happened on 9/11. Olbermann criticizes that, and apparently, he's out of line. Interesting logic.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>"Olbermann's connection of the aftermath of 9/11 to Bush's policy in Iraq is absurd."<< Sorry that I wasn't clearer in this statement. I was trying to be succinct. What I find absurd, specifically, is Olbermann's insistence on linking the lack of progress on the WTC site ("the aftermath of 9/11" within this context) with Bush's policy in Iraq.
Originally Posted By ecdc "What I find absurd, specifically, is Olbermann's insistence on linking the lack of progress on the WTC site ("the aftermath of 9/11" within this context) with Bush's policy in Iraq." Fair enough. Thanks for clarifying.
Originally Posted By YourPalEd Why is everyone bellyaching? I mean i understand why, this is very emotional. Having looked at this building quickly, and the other buildings around it, the plans for the memories, everything, i feel has been thought out, and everyone's feelings, have been thought about very carefully. When such a signifigant project is going up, i don't think the quick, up in one year, Disney California Adventure approach, is appropriate. I prefer the intense squabbling and planning that is necessary to make a statement that will hopefully never be too politically incorrect for any american. The building plans i have seen look beautriful to me, and i was raised in new york. I don't plan to go back, i have not suggested anything for the plans to anyone, not even my barber. Still i think the plans look beautiful, and every extra detail i hear about sounds wonderful, and everyone wants them to rush, cause it is so emotionally envolving. As our population grows, and tests the limits of our weather, and terrain, we will have more nature made disasters to occupy our time. I wish there were less of these man-made disasters.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder If anyone cares to check it out, this wikipedia entry does a fair job of providing information about Olbermann. He's had quite a career so far, and it's surprising so many people profess not have heard of him. When you see how many places he's worked, you have to figure some people just couldn't place him or they don't keep up with as many news sources as they profess. FWIW, I've known about Olbermann since he was just a local sports guy here in L.A. almost 20 years ago. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Olbermann" target="_blank">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K eith_Olbermann</a>
Originally Posted By DlandJB Thanks for the link SPP. I read it. I still never heard of him. But I didn't have "real" cable until just last year.
Originally Posted By vbdad55 I actually do remember him when I see the picture, but like dlandJB I didn't have cable/dish until about 18 months ago. I just flat out refused as we as a family are out so much we just don't watch a lot of TV....I added Dish as a package when I opened an office in my house and changed LD services and added DSL. But IMHO, he should have stuck to sports...
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>When you see how many places he's worked, you have to figure some people just couldn't place him or they don't keep up with as many news sources as they profess.<< I don't watch any sportcasts. Other than that and MSNBC, Olbermann hasn't worked that many places. I do believe I did see part of one of his broadcasts, though. The section on his feud with Bill O'Reilly reminded me of a broadcast I caught in which he made so many childish statements that I changed channels. I guess that was him.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "I don't watch any sportcasts. Other than that and MSNBC, Olbermann hasn't worked that many places." RKO Radio, CNN, WCVB Boston, KTLA and KCBS in LA, ESPN TV and Radio, MSNBC, FOX TV (both news and sports), ABC Radio, KFWB Radio in LA (where he won an Edward Murrow Award). He also won 11 Golden Mike awards while in LA. "I do believe I did see part of one of his broadcasts, though. The section on his feud with Bill O'Reilly reminded me of a broadcast I caught in which he made so many childish statements that I changed channels. I guess that was him." No need to continue to bash him on my account, I was just putting his bio out there so people could know more about him.
Originally Posted By jonvn Until about a month ago, I didn't even get MSNBC. Now it's on DISH, but I don't watch it.
Originally Posted By DlandJB We had "limited basic cable" in VA. Only cost me $14 month but it really wasn't more than reception for the local channels. I never even saw Bill O'Reilly until a year ago. Ah, life was simpler then.
Originally Posted By DlandDug SPP, those many, many venues were largely sportscasts. (I can read on my own, thank you.) So, as I said, aside from MSNBC, I would not have seen him since I don't watch sportscasts. The sole time I saw him on MSNBC, he was basically taunting Bill O'Reilly and behaving in a totally childlike manner. Saying this isn't bashing-- just a basic description of what I saw.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "SPP, those many, many venues were largely sportscasts. (I can read on my own, thank you.) So, as I said, aside from MSNBC, I would not have seen him since I don't watch sportscasts." I'm not spoiling for a fight, so see you later on this. I just posted a link, that's all. Like I said, no need to continue to bash him on my account.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And FWIW, the fact his background is primarily in sports seems rather irrelevant to me.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>I'm not spoiling for a fight...<< Then why: "When you see how many places he's worked, you have to figure some people just couldn't place him or they don't keep up with as many news sources as they profess?" The only relevance of his work as a sportscaster is that, as I plainly stated, I don't watch any sportscasts. You then came back with a long list of the various places he has worked... as a sportscaster. And then chided me for repeating that I hadn't seen him, as I don't watch sportscasts. Oh, aside from part of a childish rant I saw him delivering about Bill O'Reilly, which I assume was him since it fit the description in the link you so thoughtfully provided. That's all.
