Friday, November 30, 2007
I love it. O'Reilly, right, he's always belly-aching about Obama, accuses him of not having the courage to do tough interview shows (his, obviously, first and foremost amongst them) - choosing, instead, to go on the Oprah show, etc.. Well, GUESS WHAT, Mr. Obama, not only has he gone on Good Morning America (Mr. O'Reilly mistakenly saying he hadn't), but he's recently added Meet the Press as well to his itinerary. Does Mr. O'Reilly give him credit for this? Of course not. For, to do so, I'm saying, would require him to acknowledge something that contradicts him....DOUBLY. First, he'd have to admit that Obama has in fact cleared the bar that he, O'Reilly, has set for him; handling a tougher set of q and a, etc.. That, and he'd also have to acknowledge that Tim Russert (yes, an evil NBC news employee), during this interview, acted as far from a water-carrying Democrat as O'Reilly himself. He'd have to do something that just isn't in him, in other words...............................P.S. This is just so typical, isn't it - him deleting information that doesn't suit him, his theories, his propaganda, etc.? And the fact that he has the balls to call his rivals on the carpet FOR PRECISELY THE SAME THING (his allegations largely hyperbolic, of course) It's practically hilarious, I'm telling you.
Tuesday, November 27, 2007
Last week on Fox's Sunday show (you know, the one where their "panel" consists of one wishy-washy liberal sandwiched between two crass neocons/Bush apologists, where the wishy-washy liberal almost always capitulates to / gets him or herself co-opted, etc.) - more, I'm afraid to say, in terms of shameless water-carrying............................I point, specifically, to the panel discussion. Being (I guess) that we were fast approaching the Thanksgiving holiday, the moderator proceeded to ask these panelists, "so, what are you thankful for this Thanksgiving?" Their answers? Both Fred Barnes and Charles Krauthammer said that they (are you ready for this?) were thankful for all the "wonderful progress that's been taking place in Iraq.".............................Wow, huh? Talk about using an American holiday (and, yes, what clearly should have been an opportunity to show SOME humility) to make a cheap/blatantly partisan political point - and an obviously deceptive one, at that. It's despicable, I'm telling you - beyond the pale and then some..............................P.S. Seriously, though, how many times do I have to say this? Yes, there may be some reduction in violence in certain places. Does this mean that the surge is working? Of course not. 1) The added influx of troops has only squelched the violence (any time you add more checkpoints, the violence is suppressed BUT ONLY FOR AS LONG AS YOU HAVE THE CHECKPOINTS). As soon as we leave, the violence will return, whether we leave nine months from now or nine years from now. 2) A great deal of the reduced violence in certain areas is because those areas have already been ethnically cleansed (all those frigging refugees, hello!). There isn't any longer a need for murder/mayhem. And 3) the goal of the surge, AS WAS STATED BY THE ADMINISTRATION, was to create an opportunity for political reconciliation. The fact that there hasn't been any, folks, DE facto, makes the surge a failure. A failure, Mr.s Barnes and Krauthammer, am I safe to assume that you're thankful for that as well? Ya' morons.
Friday, November 23, 2007
And he talks about war with Iran likes it's just another day at the office. I mean, it's like, what, we bomb them and they're not going to do anything back at us? They're not going to launch missiles against us in Iraq? They're not going to give the green-light to Hezbollah? They're not going to close off the Straits of Hormuz and send the price of oil sky-rocketing? And what about Israel, too, I'm saying? Does he think that they're just going to sit back and NOT retaliate against Hezbollah? Evidently, I'm gathering.............................Not that the guy EVER thinks of consequences, mind you, dirty little details, etc..
Thursday, November 22, 2007
"Winning the war on terror." I don't know, I guess that that just sounds kind of odd to me. I mean, sure, I want to reduce as much as possible ALL forms of senseless violence/mayhem. But, so, too, I'm saying, I want to reduce the ill-effects of drunk driving, illicit drug use, sexual violence against women. I want the murder rate, especially, to go down. Cancer deaths, air-pollution, I want all of it to be eliminated/reduced as much as possible............................But, really, let's get sober here my friends. How, pray-tell, do you "win" a war on something that's as ill-defined as some douche-bag blowing himself up in a crowded place. I mean, sure, there are probably many things we CAN do to keep ourselves safe/safer - both from an offensive (intelligence sharing, covert operations, limited military action, supporting the moderate elements of Islam) and defensive (homeland security measures) perspective. But, really, are we ever going to totally eliminate (which I gather is what Mr. O'Reilly means by "win") terrorism from the face of the earth? Hardly, I'm thinking...............................Of course, the worst of all possible worlds is a policy....that doesn't just fail to contain terrorism but actually makes it worse. What we're frigging doing now, in other words; bludgeoning, sabre-rattling (axis of evil, love that one), occupation, the having of a large chunk of our military stuck in Arabia (forever, apparently), etc.. George W. Bush's policies, in other words. P.S. I fully recognize the dangers of WMD in the hands of terrorists and that, yes, everything needs to done to hopefully prevent that. All I'm saying is that here, too, let's not be stupid, O.K.?
Wednesday, November 21, 2007
Hey, Bill, I've heard that the military's desertion rate is the highest it's been in 25 years. If I were to report that, would THAT be considered an anti-military story? Seriously, I'm saying, and would I myself be considered a hater of the military as well? I mean, not to be overly rhetorical, mind you, but you do see what you're doing here, don't you, bro? You've basically created a situation here (granted, it's essentially in your own mind but, still, you apparently do have some influence) where you've "scoundrelized" objectivity, stifled dissent, and, yes, dumbed down the journalistic profession substantially............................Of course, so, too, is your hypocrisy a nasty and troubling thing at times. i mean, I've already documented your refusal to cover the Walter Reed story (not exactly "supportive" of the troops then, now were you?) - choosing, instead, to "support" the Bush administration by not embarrassing it. Couple that, of course, with all the other stories you've ignored; inadequate body armor, reductions in standards (recruitment-wise), the pandemic of P.T.S.D. and T.B.I. as a result of this war, multiple/lengthened deployments, etc. and, really, a person has to wonder, is your allegiance really to the American soldier? I'm serious, bro, I'm thinking the only way that you might report on the fact that (drum-roll, please) one in four homeless persons is a vet....is if in fact our present "commander" in chief gets kicked out of his (actually, it's our)....out on to the curbs of, yes, Pennsylvania Avenue.
Sunday, November 18, 2007
To be honest about it, I've always kind of thought Dennis Miller was brilliant. Oh hell, I guess I probably still do. That's why I'm totally astonished that I would have to explain something to him. This, I'm saying, and, yet, apparently here it is, a necessity.............................Remember when Joe Biden ridiculed Giuliani, poking fun not just of his qualifications, mind you, but questioning his capacity as well, "Giuliani's sentences consist of three things; a noun, a verb, and 9/11."? Ya, well, it seems that Mr. Miller, being that he himself's a Giuliani supporter, kind of took some umbrage with the pun, saying in effect that Senator Biden was using 9/11 as a "punch-line" (adding, also, a wish that Biden and the Dems would continue to do so....in that, yes, this in fact would ensure their defeat), treating it as some sort of trivial event, etc.............................I mean, I don't know whether it was intentional or not but, to me anyway, the "punch-line" of Mr. Biden's statement wasn't necessarily 9/11 but, rather, the former mayor's chronic and incessantly shameless utilization of the event as a form of self-promotion. It's like, I'd even go as far as to say that the Senator went a little TOO easy on him. The good mayor's (and, yes, in many ways he was good) actual record on terrorism hasn't been stellar at all (the radio fiasco, the command and control fiasco, the mayor's recommendation of Bernie Kerik to be the Secretary of Homeland Security, etc.). This and, yes, the guy's a flaming S.O.B. as well.............................And to think, folks, just how much of an independent thinker Dennis Miller used to be....prior to his turn as a terror warrior, partisan stooge, etc..
Friday, November 16, 2007
Of course, so, too, does his jihad against MSNBC continue. This time, though, damned if he wasn't able to incorporate (drum roll, please) Rosie O'Donnell (talk about a perfect storm, huh? - she obviously being another of his targets) as well into the equation............................That's right, apparently Ms. O'Donnell did have some sort of negotiations with the network (something about offering her a show, I gather) - preliminary and, yet, man, did Mr. O'Reilly ever have a field-day with them. The fact that these negotiations broke off early and led to nothing, that was obviously beside the point. HIS shit had already left HIS rectum. And, no, neither did it matter, either, once in fact it (i.e., the obvious) was pointed out to him; the illogical fit of Rosie O'Donnell and MSNBC. Na, that just made him turn up the juices even more, "Of course, it's a perfect fit. They're just as far to the left and loony as she is. She'd have a perfect home over there.".................................I mean, talk about insulting, huh? To say that the skilled and highly intelligent professionals of that network (from Chris Jansing all the way to Chris Matthews, I'm saying) have as THEIR kindred spirit....some lunatic conspiracy theorist, an absolute fountain of misinformation (yeah, I actually kind of DO agree with O'Reilly about her), etc., that is absolutely beyond the pale, folks. Way to go, Mr. O'Reilly - ya' frigging turd.
Sunday, November 11, 2007
O'Reilly, I'm telling you, he's been throwing around these idiotic assertions of his like they're the gospel. Just the other night, for example, he spitted out that "Saturday Night Live" - "They usually make fun only of conservatives" (everything through a political lens with this guy, I'm serious). It's like, what an idiot, huh? This, I'm saying, in that, yeah, I felt like asking the son-of-a-bitch, "where in the bluest blazes were you in the 90s, dude? - all they frigging did back then WAS blast the Clintons."................................... Of course, as straight forward as all this apparently is, we are in fact talking about O'Reilly's audience here. Me, I cannot help but think that a massive chunk of those peons watching are buying it; all the mindless dichotomies, all the conspiratorial crap, all those frigging leaps of faith, etc.. And, yes, it really and truly scares me big time, O'Reilly and all of his minions, folks................................Oh, and did you catch him, too, in that idiotic name-dropping tactic of his, once more lumping war-hero, Jack Murtha, with Sean Penn? I mean, really, how insulting is THAT - not just to Congressman Murtha, mind you, but to those very few reasoned/fair-minded people still around watching that three-ring circus? Seriously, it's almost enough to make you forget what a thin-skinned son-of-a-bitch HE IS, always complaining about HIS "unfair"treatment, etc.. Bill O'Reilly, I'm saying.
Friday, November 9, 2007
How 'bout Brit Hume, though? In yet another effort to make Bush's war in Iraq seem more successful, he stakes out this claim that the refugee problem (a problem, mind you, that he himself up to now has never really acknowledged) is getting better. Specifically, he says that instead of leaving Iraq (into Syria) in droves, most people are staying and a lot of the refugees themselves are returning. Of course, what Mr. Hume forgets/ purposefully leaves out is that Syria is now making it harder for people to enter their country (harder to get visas, specifically). Kind of a critical piece of information, don't you think?..........................Oh hell, this is quintessential Fox, folks, ignoring an issue that's inconvenient to the advancement of your agenda UNTIL you can find a way (almost always deceptively, of course) to make it work FOR your agenda. There are two million Iraqi refugees (four million, if you count those that have been displaced internally) and Fox has virtually ignored this U.S.-created humanitarian disaster. Shit, Bill O'Reilly would just as soon cover an illegal alien jay-walking in Tupelo, Mississippi...............................Seriously, though, we all know what's been going on over there. Any issue that casts an unfavorable light on our current president will not, WILL NOT, receive an adequate amount of coverage. This, I'm saying, in that, no, conservatism (a la, say, George Will), while it may be of some importance to the network, isn't it's primary focus. It's primary focus is that of an uncritical political lackey to Bush, the neocons, and, yes, our present insane misadventure in Arabia. And to think that Brit Hume used to be an actual newsman. Go to frigging figure, huh?
Wednesday, November 7, 2007
The inimitable Christopher Hitchens, folks, very entertaining and, yet, he does appear to struggle at times. For instance, in his latest effort to blame organized religion (specifically, Christianity) for every atrocity under the sun, he tries to link Christianity (convolutedly, at best) not only with fascism but with the development of Communism, too. It's like, what's next, I feel like asking him, pornography having as IT'S justification various Biblical scripture?............................I don't know, it seems to me as if Mr. Hitchens here is attempting to create some dogma of his own. Not that I necessarily disagree with the essence of what he's saying, mind you. Christianity, above and beyond it's anthropomorphic absurdities, has in fact been an impetus/justification for many atrocities (Native-American genocide, slavery, the Salem witchcraft trials, etc.). All I'm saying is that, no, Mr. Hitchens really needn't have to embellish/ over-the-top reach to state it as so............................And, besides, isn't the problem itself not one so much of religious versus secular dogma but of an over-reliance on dogma, period? I mean, seriously, are not Hitler's beliefs (whether or not they're theistic OR atheistic) nothing but the insane rantings of a "systematizer" gone haywire? And, really, for either side to compare Hitler to the other is hideous. This, I'm saying, in that, no, while Adolph Hitler doesn't resemble Bertrand Russell, so, too, is a resemblance to Pope Paul lacking. An agnostic's perspective, at least.
Monday, November 5, 2007
I love how O'Reilly constantly focuses on the vagueness and/illogic (as determined by him, of course) of the Democratic presidential candidates' positions. I mean don't get me wrong here, a lot of what they've been saying IS problematic (Hillary's lack of consistency on drivers licenses for illegals, the latest) but for him, I'm saying, to so regularly focus just on that side of the aisle, it's kind of telling, isn't it?...........................And, no, it's not like the Republicans are holding back, either, not giving allegedly fair-minded journalists ammo, etc.. Just look at those frigging miserable front-runners, for Christ! Giuliani actually said that water-boarding "may or may not be torture....depending on who does it." I mean, talk about a situational ethics scenario/argument. I thought O'Reilly and his colleagues at Fox hated such ambiguity. Apparently not............................Oh, and let's not forget Mitt Romney. When asked about our options regarding Iran, he pitched that, yes, he would consider "bombardment of some sort." It's like, how's that for a vague/ cover-your-ass response to an extremely difficult issue; "a bombardment of some sort"? And he makes it sound so clinical, too, like he's moving a frigging chess piece or something. Of course, none of this is a problem in O'Reilly's mind - too busy looking for chinks in Edwards's armour, the bastard.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
It's official, folks, it's now fair to say that these lunatics (Hannity and company) see everything, EVERYTHING, through a political prism (a hackneyed/idiotically partisan one, at that). I mean, have you ever seen them NOT try and wedge one of their stand-by dichotomies into even the most pedestrian of discussions, make every contorted effort possible to put liberals on the defensive (phrasing all inquiries in a slanted manner/ the use of ridiculous/pejorative labels, etc.), etc.? And then they have the absolute chutzpah to deny that THEY have an agenda. It's over-the-top comical, I'm saying.
Saturday, November 3, 2007
I don't know how the rest of the folks feel, Bill, but me, a president who doesn't believe in evolution, that just flat-out scares the crap out of me (never mind the fact that he believes in a literal interpretation of the Bible). I mean, we're talking about the leader of the free world here, basically thumbing his nose at the scientific community, believing in a bunch of superstitious folk-lore instead. It doesn't look good to say the least, me-bucko............................And, no, while it may not be "equivalent" to Islamic fundamentalism, I am in fact telling you, bro, this is NOT a school of thought that we should be leaning toward - not in these troubled times, big fella'.
Friday, November 2, 2007
Bill, you couldn't even carry Tom Brokaw's pencil, for Christ! I mean, seriously, bro, to actually have the nerve to denigrate a reporter like Mr. Brokaw, when you yourself, I'm saying, put forth such an absolutely pitiful performance (water-carrying at it's absolute finest) NIGHTLY!!...............................Just look at what you did tonight (10/30/07) alone, me-bucko. Less than ten minutes after sticking it to Brokaw for being soft, you yourself allow Republican presidential candidate Mike Huckabee to say all sorts of bizarre stuff UNCHALLENGED!! I mean, the frigging guy believes in Adam and Eve, for Christ! How in the bluest blazes do you NOT challenge that? It's like, what, you can't pronounce the words, Australopithecus robustus, or something? Talk about a guy who doesn't do his homework.