Friday, June 29, 2007
Bill O'Reilly, though, he's got to be the most retrospective genius ever. And the fact that he's always exploiting these tragedies, too, I'm saying. Take, for instance, these two young women murdered by the men in their lives. These men, he goes on to say, were so obviously evil, troubled, and chaotic that the women should have known that they were in danger and, yes, should have extricated themselves from the situation. The victims of murder, in other words, knowing someday that they probably WILL be murdered, should take it upon themselves to avoid said fatality...............Wow, huh? And, no, I'm not even focusing on the "blaming the victim" aspect to such a theory. This, I'm saying, in that damned if this guy isn't THE most "in your face" of all the Monday-morning quarterbacks combined. First of all, I'd be willing to bet that 95-99% of the people out there who do in fact lead "chaotic" lives never, HELLO(!), kill people! And what about, too, all of those "he seemed like such a quiet guy" guys whose "tea leaves" are only on the inside - those frigging guys who "blow" and blow people away? Should we try to extricate ourselves from all of these stooges/ mamby pambs, as well?............It's like, come on, why can't O'Reilly just admit that human behavior is in large measure unpredictable....and that none of us, him included (Mr. phone-sex guy) has a totally clean slate here? This, I'm asking, though it probably was a good thing that that lady "extricated" herself from HIM - him, being that he's such an unstable person and all. Bill O'Reilly, ladies and gents.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
O.K., let's see if I've gotten this one straight, Bill. Even though you don't necessarily agree with Senator Luger's assessment that we need to start scaling back our troop presence in Iraq, you still respect his opinion on the subject matter. Gee, that's funny, in that, no, I can't seem to remember you saying anything resembling that when Congressman Murtha (what, a couple of years ago now?) said basically the same thing. In fact, I kinda' recall you saying all sorts of negative things about the Congressman; i.e., that he's a cut and runner, that he doesn't understand the geopolitical dynamics of the region (yeah, like you do), etc.. Hmmm, could it possibly be as simple as the fact that Luger's a Republican......and Murtha's, well, from that other political party? A blatantly partisan rationale, in other words?..............And, no, don't give me any of that bunk about Murtha having called for a precipitous withdrawal. Clearly, he did not. Nor, in fact (and, yes, while I have you on the line here), did he ever suggest that we redeploy our troops to Okinawa. Granted, he did mention Okinawa BUT ONLY AS A LAST RESORT (i.e., if Kuwait or the United Arab Emirates, say, said we couldn't use THEIR countries as a military base - THEIR COUNTRIES, Bill, their countries). And you have the audacity to complain about people quoting you out of context. Such an incredibly staunch bozo you are.
Wednesday, June 27, 2007
And you continue to play loose, too, and ever so fanciful with the facts, me-bucko. Granted, MSNBC has been covering Iraq 31% of the time (compared to 15% by Fox). But you, Bill, make it seem as if this coverage centers exclusively around explosions (the bomb de jour as you so dismissively call it), AND IT DOESN"T!! Only 10% of MSNBC's Iraq coverage (3% overall) focuses on the carnage of the conflict. The vast majority of the rest of it involves analysis. I mean, sure, it's probably not analysis that you agree with (this, though, you yourself have called Iraq a mess) but, I'm telling you there buddy-boy, there aren't a lot of people anywhere these days whose analysis you probably would like...........Take Joe Scarborough, for instance. This guy was firmly behind the war but, unlike the doctrinaire neocons (the legion of which is shrinking, mind you) who continue to insulate Bush, he's changed his assessment based on the facts. But, no, Joe Scarborough works for MSNBC and, therefore, he, too, must now be a member of the far-left media apparatus. It's ridiculous, I'm telling you.
Tuesday, June 26, 2007
And neither does it get much more preposterous than Laura Ingraham, for Christ! I especially love it when she refers to the "idiocy" of the atheistic perspective. This, I'm saying, from a person who thinks that a man-like spirit, hovering, I don't know, somewhere outside the expanses of a continually changing universe, not only created the earth (guessing that the bible didn't know about the other planets/ solar-systems) but who continues as well to be an arbiter of moral issues, answerer of prayers, etc.. It's like, whoa! And then she has the audacity, too, to be so thin-skinned about it. How dare people (!) have the nerve to even bring up the logical inconsistencies/ anthropomorphic pretenses of such a time-honored (albeit culturally limited) tradition. It's blasphemous, apparently.
It was, in fact, exciting as it was unfathomable to me. This, I'm saying, in that, really, HOW OFTEN IS IT......that a beauty who's as out of the ordinary as D HAS BEEN.....for months at Sassy's ever as a consequence acknowledges me? I mean, it just doesn't happen, I'm tellin' ya - truth, being in the advertising of it and everything fair. Seriously!!!
Monday, June 25, 2007
I dare you, Bill, stare into the eyes of Colonel Jack Jacobs, General Barry McCaffrey, etc. and, yeah, tell THEM that they've become nothing more than a mouth-piece for some far-left media outlet. In the words of that Karl Malden character at the end of "Nevada Smith", dude(!), "You're yellow! You haven't got the guts! You haven't got the guts! You're yellow!"............Seriously, though, me-bucko, do you just not see the absurdity here? Evidently not. That's my guess.
Saturday, June 23, 2007
Oh, and then there's Mr. O'Reilly's stance on torture. Talk about a fellow who wants it both ways. First of all (and, yes, out of one side of his mouth), he says that the Bush administration in no way has advocated torture, that it's all in fact a radical, left-wing smear tactic by those whose agenda is strictly that of embarrassing the President. Fair enough. Arguable (Gonzales's memo, policy of rendition, etc.), but fair enough...............Of course, at the same time, though, he (who, like the President, mind you, has never had any meaningful military experience) continues to spout the effectiveness of torture (hell, he says, that's how the Pakistanis were able to solve a case of potential terrorism). You see what I'm saying here? It's, therefore, like what, the President is being remiss in the fact that he ISN'T engaging in said tactics? The President is being weak on terrorism?..............And he has the audacity, too, to say that Colin Powell, John McCain, John Warner, and Lindsey Graham (all of whom have far more experience on military matters - both congressional and, yes, WHILE ACTUALLY HAVING SERVED IN THE MILITARY than either he or the President) are "misguided". I mean, talk about an arrogant son-of-a-bitch; this fellow, O'Reilly.
Friday, June 22, 2007
I've noticed, also, how, in your excuse for not covering the war (i.e., that it gives the terrorists publicity), you've fallen prey to yet another neoconservative bromide - namely, that it's terrorism we're fighting over there (conflating Iraq with the "war" on terrorism). I mean, come on, Bill. Any journalist whose head is even half-way indisposed from his rectum knows that Al Qeada comprises only a small fraction of the conflict over there. The vast majority of the violence is intra and intersectional war; Sunni on Shia, Shia on Sunni, Sunni on Sunni, etc. - a civil war on steroids, in other words, with U.S. troops being stuck in the middle of it. Just how it plays out on American television, I don't think it weighs heavily upon them. Hell, who knows, maybe they DON"T want the war on television. This, I'm saying, in that, think about it, they (the Sunni insurgents, in particular) probably want to keep us there - as a counterweight to the Shia militias and, yes, to kill us frigging Americans, too, for Christ!!.................There, now how was that for some twisted/ paranoid/ convoluted reasoning. Almost have to admire me for it, don't you, Mr. Bill O'Reilly?
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
So, Bill, have you heard that Republican presidential candidate, Jim Gilmore, is now espousing that we scale back our troop presence in Iraq and, yes, REDEPLOY them out of and away from the largely sectarian bloodshed - the same message, in other words, that Congressman Murtha has been saying for, what, basically two years now? Yeah, that's right, I'm talking about the same Congressman Jack Murtha who you've so flagrantly mischaracterized as a "cut and runner" (the guy's a frigging war hero, for Christ!)........... Hmmm, that's interesting, isn't it? Of course, I also can't help but wonder here, Bill, are you going to give Governor Gilmore the same level of "going over", now that he's a cut and runner and all? What's that, don't hold my breath, you're saying? Yeah, you're probably right, I shouldn't, huh?
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
It's not so much, Bill, a sense that Fox News is a conservative network that bothers people. It's more the fact that it constantly claims NOT TO BE (the whole fair and balanced shtick, etc.). That's all. You are who you are. Admit it. Of course, the fact that claims are consistently being made by you, Sean Hannity, Neil Cavuto, John Gibson, etc., based on only a sampling of the evidence (outrageous claims, at that; liberals rooting for the terrorists and such), that's probably a basis for the criticism, as well. Just a frigging thought, I'm saying!.........It's like what I was saying before, he/ they make a caricature of all opposing viewpoints.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Maybe if he didn't constantly feel the need to vilify those of a different mindset. And the fact, too, I'm saying, that he tries to get inside people's heads/ their souls, tries to impugn their motivation, etc.. Just take, for instance, this whole obsession he seems to have with Jessica's Law. It's like, "Bill, I get it - stiff sentences for child sex offenders. Not a problem, dude." But, really, does he have to label every person who opposes Jessica's Law as a coddler of the sexually deviant, a member of the secular-progressive movement, a proponent of weak, "restorative" justice, etc., etc.?........... I mean, I was reading the opinion of this one lady, right, who seemed to have some legitimate concerns. She states that the stiff sentences put forth by Jessica's Law make it much harder to 1) extract confessions and 2) negotiate a plea bargain. As a result, these cases (not the bulk of which are slam-dunks, mind you) will have to go to trial and maybe, just maybe, a lot of these miscreants will end up serving no time in prison, at all! How is THAT being tough on sexual deviants, Mr. O'Reilly?..............But, seriously though, do you see what I'm saying here - his illegitimately/ prematurely vilifying people, the oversimplification of complex issues, etc.? I mean, it actually would be funny, I'm saying, if in fact it wasn't just as frightening BIG TIME - simultaneously so.
Sunday, June 17, 2007
The hatred of France, though, that's another good one. It's like, what, because these guys had the foresight NOT to get bogged down in a Middle-Eastern quagmire, they now have to face the wrath of lunatics like Bill O'Reilly? I mean, seriously, what kind of topsy-turvy universe are we living in here? Not, mind you, that the French are perfect in every way, their hands totally clean, etc.. All I'm saying is that 1) they helped us win the first Gulf War, 2) they helped us after 9/11, and 3) why should they be vilified for good sense/ protecting their own national interests? I mean, that's what we do all the time, right?
Saturday, June 16, 2007
Oh, yeah, and as for all of this, "it doesn't further the story" nonsense (O'Reilly's excuse for not covering what he now so cavalierly refers to "bomb de jour" stories), I'm afraid I'm going to have to part company with Mr. O'Reilly here, too. This, I'm saying, in that this steady drumbeat of violence/ mayhem tells us indeed A VERY IMPORTANT PART of the "story" - namely, that President Bush's "surge" strategy, well, it doesn't appear to be working. Oh, wait a minute, I forget, that's not a particular part of the narrative they even want reported, is it?...........And, no, I'm not even prepared to say that it's working in certain parts of the country. I mean, think about it, the absence of violence in certain Iraq territories is a signifier of what? Might it not simply mean that those regions of Iraq have already been ethnically cleansed and, hence, there isn't any longer a need for fighting TO occur? Of course, another and equally obvious reason for lessened conflict is that the Shia insurgents, in particular, are playing what those of sports-related mindset would fondly call "rope-a-dope". They're laying low, moving on to another area, waiting for the little Dutch boy to take his finger out of the dike, whatever!! I mean, it's kind of like what I've said before: fighting THESE bastards, it's like taking a sledge hammer to Jello.
Thursday, June 14, 2007
Let's see if I've gotten this one straight - because MSNBC is covering the Iraq War (I prefer to call it a debacle but, whatever) the way wars have always been covered, HELLO(!!), by reporting on the violence of the conflict, this proves that they're biased against Bush somehow? Holy frigging Toledo!! I mean, couldn't we just as easily, for Christ, Mr. O'Reilly, posit (using similar logic to yours) that the extreme paucity of reporting on the part of you and YOUR brethren at Fox is hard/ unadulterated evidence that you guys in fact are rooting FOR Bush/ the Republican party? Of course, it also might be possible that you're rooting for the terrorists, too. I'm kidding!!..............Kidding and, yet, has not THIS Iraq fiasco been as well a hell of a recruiting tool FOR bin Laden - a gift to the bastard; us, having been bogged down in the desert for, what?, 50-something months now. Talking-points memos, my ass!!!
Wednesday, June 13, 2007
I'm wondering, though, would Ann Coulter's cavalier notion of "collateral damage" change...if in fact it was a 20 megaton bomb exploding in HER backyard? At the good house, I'm saying, the one she's purchased from all of those book sales, speaking fees, etc...........And why can't she just frigging admit that the country of Iraq (if indeed it ever actually was a country) IS OVER? It's split, splintered, come apart, whatever you want to call it. That, and it's done so largely as a result of the measures we've taken.......Of course, instead of accepting this reality (which could actually be viewed as a positive scenario, through vision), Annie and the neocons want to put "Iraq" back together again. I mean, talk about a collision of arrogance and naivete. It's like, sure, perhaps we could in fact accomplish this. But it would probably take 500,000 troops, cost us tens of thousands in casualties, take decades, and necessitate a return to Saddam Hussein-style martial law. Talk about moving everything back to square one!!!!........Hell, maybe even Ann Coulter herself could be the new dictator/ empress/ philosopher king of a new, much more "efficient" Iraq. She'd definitely be good at it, don't you think?
Tuesday, June 12, 2007
And now he's got the chutzpah to say that HIS audience..... is actually smarter than the average consumer of TV news. SMARTER THAN (!!!), he's saying. I mean, I don't know where he gets his numbers from, but I am telling you something right now - those in fact who watch his show AND believe in what he says, there is no way that those people are smarter-than-average viewers. No frigging way in hell, I'm telling you. And if in fact there are intelligent people watching, damned if there are only a couple of reasons I can think of for it: 1) it's a frigging freak show and people are amused by it or 2) they're purely and simply keeping an eye on the fellow. This, I'm saying, in that if indeed there ever was a TV personality (alright, Rosie O'Donnell, I'll give you that one) who absolutely needed some monitoring.......
Monday, June 11, 2007
Damn, I hope that that didn't sound as if I was an apologist for "orthodox thinking". Clearly, I'm not. In fact, all I was really trying to do was look at the facts/ probabilities and ask myself, "hmmm, let's see, literal interpretation of the bible or evolution, which of these interpretations is a tad more plausible?" That's all. Ha, of course, the fact that I'm a relatively open-minded individual (not a lot of dogma residing in this fellow, baby!), neither, either, was it a particularly difficult quandary - threats of eternal damnation, notwithstanding!!!
Ann Coulter, though, crapping bricks over the theory of evolution - that, my friends, is totally hilarious. And the fact, too, that she tries to attack it from a scientific standpoint, hyperbolically so - saying, in essence, that the theory doesn't have a shred of validity WHATSOEVER, that the entire mainstream of orthodox thinking is wrong, and that God DID IN FACT twiddle his thumbs for 4 BILLION years....waiting for the concept of "in his image" to arrive. Of course, to think that one so wedded to an orthodoxy as self affirming as hers would have the capacity to reflect upon it..... Well, let's just say that the "evolution" there, too, hasn't quite arrived yet.
Sunday, June 10, 2007
I'm telling you, though, as much as I hate to assume even the risk of over-embellishment here (a tactic of O'Reilly himself), it really isn't much of a stretch to call HIS tactics McCarthyesque. For, I'm saying, just like McCarthy (and the accusing teenage girls of Salem before him), O'Reilly's penchant is to see his enemies (the villains, as he calls them) everywhere. So, instead of just accusing known Communists (as McCarthy failed to do) or the easier marks of Salem Village (as those accusers failed), so, too, does O'Reilly paint with his brush, rather recklessly...........Just watch a little TV, I'm saying. I, for one, have seen countless members of this supposed left-wing cabal on television of late and, yeah, for the most part they seem to be a relatively reasonable lot (political reporters from the Washington Post, slate.com, etc.). Nothing, in other words, like the flame-breathing dragons that O'Reilly is constantly describing..........Oh well. Hopefully, and as was eventually the case with Joe McCarthy (accusing Eisenhower's Secretary of the Army), Elizabeth Hubbard (citing, I do believe high ranking government officials of witchcraft - spectral evidence, ha!), etc., O'Reilly's reaches, too, will eventually reach a critical mass. A critical mass, I'm saying, to the point where he, too, will someday go away. Forever.
Saturday, June 9, 2007
And he's so frigging hung up on his ratings, too, for Christ. It's like, what, he actually thinks that high ratings are somehow synonymous with high quality programming - that the viewership of, say, "Laverne and Shirley" was itself indicative of excellence, the box-office power of Arnold Schwarzenegger, like-wise?...........I mean, come on, it's all a bunch of bunk and he knows it. The ONLY reason masses have a tendency to tune in O'Reilly is because he simplifies issues. That, and they don't even have to think for themselves anymore, in that HE DOES IT FOR THEM, I'm saying. Quite a little racket, huh, appealing to those baser instincts of BLOW at Sassy's, Linny....rounding the bend at hightower, etc? Quite a little racket, indeed!!!!
I can't believe O'Reilly, though. He's actually blaming the "secular progressive" movement (yeah, like it's an actual movement; strippers, Log Cabin Republicans, counselors from Planned Parenthood, etc. - all joining forces against him) for that fellow with tuberculosis...hopping on a plane, exposing others to infection, etc.. It's like, talk about the imbecile jumping the gun, blatantly, huh?...........First of all, how the hell does O'Reilly know the ethical mindset of this or any other complete/ total stranger, for Christ(!!)? I mean, seriously, this fellow, for all we know, might be an even bigger traditionalist/ hypocrite than O'Reilly himself is. But even beyond that, though, to blame an isolated event on what is truly nothing more than a solitary man's eccentric paradigm (yeah, O'Reilly's I'm talking about) - it's preposterous, I'm saying! It's like, couldn't we just as easily blame the TB man's faux pas on Ayn Rand, a conservative philosopher who had in fact espoused, HELLO(!!), SELFISHNESS!!!!!!!!!!!
Friday, June 8, 2007
Ella Darnell IS to rehabilitating others what Berthe Morisot was in fact to painting -conscience to the divine, in other words. And, so, too, I'm saying (as I'm listening to Patty Loveless singing.....in her hootenanny style), the "fragrance" of HER approach, Ella's, to the paths of those with far less fortune is as well apparent to me. Of course, the utmost testimony is that even if I were in fact a blind man reaching for a book to read (Willa Cather's "Shadows on the Rock", perhaps) the essence of her kindness as it parries in the shadows is itself a much more substantive Cecile - this, at least when it comes to me.
Thursday, June 7, 2007
Not that such mindlessness is confined to O'Reilly, mind you. Yesterday, for instance, I actually witnessed Republican strategist, Cheri Jacobus, ludicrously charge that liberals had in fact been the group persecuting Romney for his Mormonism. Ans she did it with a straight face, too, I'm telling ya'. I mean, I know she's stupid and all but, really, anybody with an I.Q. over 80 knows it for a fact: Romney's religious problems clearly emanate from the farthest of the far, far farthest RIGHT; evangelicals, who don't even consider Mormonism a religion - never mind part of the mainstream Christian faith. But NO, it's the liberals, she goes. Unbelievable.
Wednesday, June 6, 2007
I get such a kick out of O'Reilly, though. He gets all upset, right, bent that the New York Times has just put a terrorist story on page 37 of it's paper. Such an outrage.......and, yet, at least they do put it IN the paper, I'm saying. When was the last time that he, O'Reilly, ever featured a story on the human costs of George Bush's war; the dead, the wounded, families being torn apart, etc.? I mean, as far as the viewers of his show go, those two MILLION Iraqi refugees are nothing but a fantasy of sorts. And, yes, all the while he's been putting Paris Hilton, etc., smack dab on the front page of his "paper", period!! Talk about hypocrisy, huh?
Tuesday, June 5, 2007
So, Bill, you choose to believe George Tenent, do you - George Tenent, when he says that torture/ enhanced interrogation is an effective way to get valuable information from terror suspects (him and all the other implementers of such and such a program, as well)? Hmmm, O.K? Well, then let me ask you something there, buster. What, pray tell, WOULD you expect a fellow like this to say about enhanced interrogation, that it doesn't work? It's what he frigging' does, for Christ!!!!..............I mean, think about it. Surgeons. They say that surgery is the best. Those who manufacture pharmaceuticals say that pharmaceuticals are superior. Radiologists, more than likely, they'll say that radiology is even better yet. It's like, do you actually think that those whose bread is buttered by humiliating our enemies would in fact be different from others whose interest is vested? You need a much more INDEPENDENT analysis, me bucko!!!
Monday, June 4, 2007
Truly, though, have you noticed how the "mainstream media" SIMPLY CANNOT WIN? Take, for example, the exhaustively positive coverage of Gerald Ford after his death. All the major networks and cable outlets totally focused on the former president's goodness, his courage, his ability to work across party lines, how he brought the country together, etc............Exemplary coverage, in other words. But, no, according to some nimrod on the Fox news channel, all of these accolades were simply nothing more than a left-wing smokescreen - you guessed it, to make our current Republican president look bad, antithetical to Ford, etc.. I mean, talk about some lunacy at it's paranoiac best. This, my friend, is the premium stuff.
Sunday, June 3, 2007
Let's see if I get this straight here, Bill. Because John Edwards has himself been financially successful, this somehow disqualifies him from speaking out on matters of economic justice (or, at least, what he perceives to be matters of economic justice)? It makes him a phony, no less? That's interesting. Of course, what's more-so...... in terms of curiosity is that, even WITH a fellow like Mitt Romney (Mr. life-long hunter, himself) on the Republican side, your inclination is clearly to call one of the leading Democrats the disingenuous one. Rather curious indeed, I'd have to say, Mr. self-proclaimed independent analytical one.................Oh, and as for Edwards's douche bag neighbors apparently not respecting the guy, seriously, do you honestly think that that's a pertinent issue to try and persecute/ crucify him on? This, I'm saying, in that, gee, I wonder what the people in your particular neighborhood would have to say about you....there, Bill - those of a different political persuasion/ economic strata, in particular.
Friday, June 1, 2007
So, this country was founded on a Judea-Christian ethic, huh? Hmmm, I'm wondering, was this the same "ethic" that promulgated slavery, indentured servitude, the accumulation of children as chattel and cheap labor, 300 years of female disenfranchisement, the extermination of native peoples, sweat shops, Jim Crow laws, Japanese internment, the fire-bombing of Dresden, the decimation of our environment, the killing off of other species, etc.?.......I mean, don't get me wrong here. In many ways, we truly ARE a tremendous nation - with a system of government that has in fact allowed for a correction of many of these wrongs (a little late for the Indians, granted). But, really, to listen to fellows like O'Reilly, I cannot help BUT to think that, yeah, maybe a little Buddhism thrown into the mix might actually help the matter - mellow us out a little bit. That, and the fact that our freedom allows for it, I'm saying!! P.S. And, besides, weren't the founding fathers mostly along the lines of deists, skeptics pertaining to the resurrection, etc.? I'm asking.