Out of the Frying-Pan and, Well, Hopefully, Just out of the Frying-Pan

On the positive side, it appears that Sully's five-year reign of terror is over. This, I'm saying, in that damned if that pristine new specimen....isn't even more hag-like, detailed, tearing up the charts with stumble-bums, etc.. Of course, the fact that this fellow here (AKA, mua) has himself inched it up a notch or two, might it not have been just as much the venue, I'm asking, inappropriate? I mean, think about it. Who in his right mind would in fact lay out feelers at Sassy's anyway - kerplunkingly, not, OR otherwise? Certainly not a standard-bearer, my friends. Certainly not a standard-bearer.

Perspective in a Nut-Shell

I think Senator Reed from Rhode Island had it best, folks. He said that, while our elected representatives have to enter Iraq under the cover of night, President Ahmadenijad, that major son-of-a-bitch gets the royal/red-carpet treatment over there. I don't know, me-buckos, it sounds to me as if that stated "victory in Iraq" objective (which, let's face it, friends, is sounding more and more like a bromide than anything) just might be a little bit farther down the road than Mr. Bush seems to think/say it is. Ha, not that this is unexpected, of course, victory having already been declared on several occasions, the surge having been called a success, etc..

Caught in a Corner of His Own Making

I tell you, though, there are clearly times when O'reilly's all-encompassing indictments are, even to himself, counterproductive. Take, for instance, when MSNBC cancelled Tucker Carlson's program. THIS would have been a golden opportunity for numb-nuts to really go off on his competitors; criticising them for cancelling a conservative commentator and replacing him with a liberal correspondent (i.e., David Gregory; a liberal/partisan, according to O'Reilly). BUT, because O'Reilly has never (as far as I know anyway) even gone as far as to admit that Carlson works for MSNBC (according to O'Reilly, conservatives don't work over there), his hands are kind of tied to do something like that. Wow, I guess that there are some things so brazen that even O'Reilly won't do them. I'll bet that he considered it, though.

Explanations Favorable to Bush, Only

Bill, during this entire "the surge is working" mantra that you, Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, Laura Ingraham, and others have been spewing on us lately, not ONCE have any of you block-heads EVER mentioned Al Sadr's ceasefire (you know, as a possible competing explanation for the reduction in violence). Not that I would necessarily expect you to do that, mind you, but....for the record, I'm saying. Of course, now that it looks as if this cease-fire may in fact be in jeopardy (I'll take idiotic examples of foreign-policy for 200, Alex), ignoring it, that may no longer be an option for you, bro. Oh well, it was probably time for a new spin-cycle anyway. That, and, yes, you had better get to it, me-bucko - A.S.A.P., chop-chop, etc..

Thank You, George W. Bush

I don't know, folks, I guess that this is a warning to both war-mongers and peace-niks, alike. This, I'm saying, in that, yes, when we finally get out of Iraq (and, yes, mark my word, we will be leaving eventually), what happens in that God-forsaken land is going to make what happened in Lebanon, circa 1980s, look like a damn tea-party. I mean, seriously, you're going to have not just all these recent scores to settle but, big-time, what happened during the Saddam regime and earlier (14 frigging centuries earlier, for Christ!!). And, yeah, you bet, to make this whole miserable analogy complete, you're even going to have a high dose of that proxy-war bull-crap going on over there. Only this time, it isn't going to be between Israel and Syria but between Iran and Saudi Arabia. Oh, and if you think that that doesn't sound quite as vicious, think again. To quote an anonymous Sunni bastard, frothing at the mouth, "The Shia, they're WORSE than the Jews."......................................P.S. This blog was not intended to advocate a position, relative to our Iraq policy. It was, instead, an essay on just what an untenable/damned-if-you-do-damned- if-you-don't situation that the Bush foreign-policy gurus have created over there. Pure negligence with a jolt of stupidity, folks.

Running Out of Land-Fill Space

Bill, those lies and contradictions of yours are getting ridiculous. You're saying what now, that the media ISN'T covering those nastier aspects of that testy intramural between Clinton and Obama? NOT COVERING IT!! Are you frigging out of your mind there, bro? It's wall to wall coverage of that fiasco on all the major cable-news networks. And I'm telling you, too, me-bucko, this extensive coverage comes complete with all the lurid details..................................I mean, just take Dan Abrams's show alone. He reserves a segment every night to Clinton and Obama cheap-shotting each other. And Chris Matthews is all over it, too, for Christ's sakes - providing with excruciating details in fact, analysis of every single example that you claim was being ignored. So, yes, you're wrong again, O'Reilly, big-time, 110% and counting.

Another Typical Cut and Paste Job/Day at the Office

You're such a shrewd son-of-a-bitch, O'Reilly. This, I'm saying, in that, yeah, I saw that little montage of yours; all those out of context clips you assembled to make the media look like lap-dogs of Obama. Well, let me tell you something there, buddy. I saw the "Hardball" episode in question and, yes, because of that, I heard EVERYTHING that Chris Matthews said. So, for instance, in addition to hearing his praise for Obama's speech, I also heard him be very critical/questioning of Obama having stayed in Wright's church for all those twenty years. Not that you would EVER show that part of the clip.....................................P.S. Seriously, though, nothing that ever makes the media (like it's a frigging monolith, for Christ!)/Democrats look even remotely decent. Nothing, still, that compromises the "right". And THIS from a guy who claims to be "fair and balanced". Bull-crap!!

A Scoundrel, By His Own Definition

Let's see if I've gotten this straight, Bill. A spate of unsavory individuals post some nasty comments....and, from this, you feel the need to tar the entire Huffington Post, Hitleresque in its proportions? Dude! It's a frigging open-forum, for Christ (unlike the Fox news web-site, which apparently prescreens all comments....and still some virulent ones appear)!! Some of this lunacy is bound to get through. It's like, why don't you just admit it, Billy-Boy. You don't like the site because it's liberal - purely and simply. I mean, come on, I'm right, right? State the frigging obvious and be done with it already. Damn it all!

More Fabrications/Easily Refuted Bull-Crap

Dear Laura, You're lying AGAIN! You go on O'Reilly tonight (3/19/08) and insist that, despite ALL the evidence to the contrary, this monolithic mainstream media (your coinage, not mine) continues to ignore the Obama pastor story. It's just not true. Chris Matthews is covering it. Dan Abrams is covering it. Joe Scarborough is covering it. Wolf Blitzer is covering it. They're all frigging covering it. It's like, what, you and O'Reilly don't think that the rest of us can separate such fact from fancy? I mean, granted, the O'Reilly audience does in fact have a tendency to gobble this stuff, completely, but, come on! Come on!!

Knee JERK Reaction(ary)

I also think you have to realize, Bill, being black in this country is an entirely different experience than being white. And it's even more different for older African-Americans in that, yes, they've clearly seen a level of oppression that the younger generation hasn't (not to say that today is perfect, mind you, but, for the sake of argument, I'm saying). So, when an older black dude, like this pastor, says things that are to your ears (and, yes, to mine, too) preposterous/inflammatory, you have to realize where he's coming from, me-bucko. He knows, for example, that black soldiers were experimented on in the army. And, so, to him, it isn't a far-fetched notion that, yeah, maybe the government did infect the black-community with H.I.V.. I mean, seriously, as imbecilic as that may in fact sound to us, you can almost understand why someone of that race and vintage would harbor such suspicions..................................I don't know, Bill, to me, it sounds as if we really might want to start trying to, instead of vilifying people (as you far too readily do, me-bucko), bridge the gap here with some real dialogue. This, I'm saying, as opposed to yada-yada, shouting matches on "Hannity and Colmes", "The O'Reilly Factor", etc..

Another Two Point Field-Goal for O'Reilly

F.Y.I., Bill, all of those Sunday (3/16/08) news shows, all the other frigging cable-channels, for Christ - they ALL covered the Obama pastor story, thoroughly, O.K.? "Face the Nation" with Bob Schieffer, in particular, gave it an extremely complete examination. And you know this for a frigging fact, don't you, me-bucko? Hell, you even went as far to allude to it.................................Of course, instead of admitting that you were (let's see, what's the word I'm looking for here, oh yeah) WRONG!, you did what any pompous, far-to-the-right-of-center, spin-meister does. Yeah, that's right, bro, you moved the frigging goal-posts!! You started bitching as to HOW they were covering it - even going as far as to look for coded meanings in the verbiage, for Christ! And this from a fellow who says that, dammit, he doesn't speculate - EVER! Incredible.

With Sports Like These....

Dear Laura, I HATE NASCAR! I think it's pointless and stupid. Does that make me an elitist? Please, tell me that it does. I so much want to be better than you - so much so that I can taste it in fact. Oh, and, while we're at it, you can shove all those hunters up your poop-shoot, too; Bambi-killing nimrods, etc...................................P.S. Wow, huh? I'm starting to sound as bad as she does. Bellicosity/vitriol - it must be contagious or something.

P.S.

Seriously, though, bro, how in the hell are we going to prevent Iranian influence in the region....when it's clearly obvious that that's what the sons of bitches themselves (i.e. the Shiite Iraqis) are gunning for? And it's going to get worse, I'm telling you, when Al Sadr and his cronies "officially" take the helm. I mean, come on, folks, talk about some irony, huh, all that blood and treasure and, what, we're probably going to end up with a scenario exactly the opposite of what was intended? Un-frigging-believable. Oh, and, yeah, fuck us, too.

Tried and True Tactic Number Two

Alright, how you gonna spin this one, Bill? President Ahmadinejad of Iran recently made a visit to Iraq and, yes, appeared to be playing footsie with this supposedly friendly-to-America (and even to Israel) Iraqi government. Yeah, that's right, this supposedly more-evil-than-shit government of terrorist-prone Iran is making successful overtures to "our" guys. What gives? I mean, you obviously can't dust off/promulgate that tried-and-true guilt-by-association tactic of yours, for example, in that damned if that wouldn't hit a little TOO close to home (AKA, it would hurt George W. Bush). Hmm, what to do, what to do? Oh yeah, there's always the option of ignoring it, huh?

Goose-Gander, Kettle-Black, Yada Yada

There's one thing that's definitely for certain, though, Bill - namely, the fact that YOU, Bill O'Reilly, ARE covering that preacher story. And when I say you're covering it, I mean, YOU ARE FRIGGING COVERING IT, bro; night after night, segment after segment. It's almost as if you're revelling in it, for Christ - one could arguably get that impression my friend................................That, I'm saying, and when you start comparing THIS to your total lack of coverage of pastor Hagee/his endorsement of John McCain, you really do have to expect a modicum of criticism, Billy. But, no, you rag on all the other media outlets for THEIR supposed bias. Talk about having some chutzpah there, me-bucko - you and the rest of those opportunistic bastards on the right.

Fact Check Via the Remote

You're wrong again, Bill. This, I'm saying, in that literally right after you said that the media WOULDN'T cover the story about Barack Obama's radical pastor (that film-clip of him making incendiary comments about America, etc.), who in the hell covers it, me-bucko, but Dan Abrams of MSNBC. Yeah, that's right, Bill, the same Abrams who's been basically echoing your sentiments that the media has in large been easier on Obama than it's been on Clinton. Wow, huh? And the fact that he comes on right after you, I'm saying. Damned if that, too, doesn't make it an easy-as-can-be case case to make against you there, bro. Oh well, all I can say, I guess, is that, YO!, Keith Olbermann really and truly must be getting to your nerves. That, and you're majorly acting like a stumble-bum, too, me-bucko!!

Sacred Cow

I'd like to make a few comments about Al Gore, folks. First of all, I do give the fellow kudos/respect for getting the topic of global-warming publicized. This, I'm saying, in that, even if (as certain detractors constantly point out) the role of man-made activity has in fact been exaggerated, the fact that we've so seriously desecrated the environment in general, certainly it's a topic worthy of discussion. My only beef is with the former V.P.'s rather myopic emphasis on what to do about it.....................................For instance (and, yes, from what I gather in that, no, I haven't seen the movie), Mr. Gore's emphasis is on improving gas-mileage and other forms of conservation. He doesn't (again, from what I gather) make a single reference to what the U.N. has clearly established as a leading cause of global-warming - namely, the livestock industry (yeah, that's right, folks, the meat industry produces 18% of all man-made greenhouse gasses, 33% more than the 13.5% produced by ALL FORMS OF TRANSPORT COMBINED!!). Nor, I'm saying, does he specify that the best single thing an individual can do to fight global warming is to, yes, damn it, eat a plant-based diet..................................I mean, I don't know, could it be that Mr. Gore is showing some ignorance here? I kind of rather doubt that. Could it be instead a geographical bias (a higher percentage of pig farms down south, etc.)? OR could it be that Mr. Gore himself is is simply unwilling give up HIS bacon, HIS ribs, HIS chicken pot pies, etc.?....................................Seriously, though, whatever it is, isn't it about time that those on the left had the balls to call Mr. Gore to the carpet here? This, I'm saying, in that, damn it all, is not the truth a hell of a lot more important than an icon?

Contingency Nonawareness

And just for the record, Bill, Chris Matthews's grilling of that Obama supporter (yeah, the one where he kept dogging the guy to name just one legislative accomplishment of the senator) happened well before that "Saturday Night Live" skit (the one that parodied the medias "gentle" treatment of Barack). But even if there was, I'm saying, some sort of temporal logic to the point you're trying to make (the parody's shaming of the media caused them to be tougher on Obama) here, all you really have is a correlation, dude. You can't draw any sort of causal inference from it; two such disparately place social events/variables (statistics 101, my friend). I mean, you might as well attribute the beefed-up coverage of Obama....to the "surge", for Christ! This, I'm saying, in that, youza, word about town says that, yes, it's been very successful indeed!

Laughable Irony

Oh, and he doesn't "speculate", he says. DOESN'T SPECULATE!!! I mean, come on, that's all the son-of-a-bitch ever seems to do, for Christ! Just on that same show, I'm saying, he "speculated" that the pop-culture's support for the Democratic candidate would no doubt add at least 5% to his/her margin (notice how he didn't speculate as how much right-wing radio would add to the Republican's margin). And the fact that he's always "speculating" as to the motives of his competition. "MSNBC has taken a sharp turn to the left", he proclaims, not, NOT, because the President himself has festered the nation but because (speculation drum-roll, please) MSNBC is trying to improve its ratings. He speculates as to why his own speculations are accurate, for Christ!! Talk about somebody who doesn't understand the breadth of his own imbecility, etc....................................P.S. And, no, as I've stated before, I don't even accept his premise that MSNBC has taken a "sharp turn to the left". I mean, sure, you've got Keith Olberman and his partisan leanings but, really, overall the network is far more mainstream than Fox. Brit Hume alone on Fox............

Evidence to the Contrary

You know what would be hilarious, folks? Juxtapose one film-clip, the one where O'Reilly proclaims himself the "toughest interviewer on television", with a montage (and, believe me, friends, you won't have difficulty compiling one; interviews of Dana Perino, Tom DeLay, Mitt Romney, etc., etc.) of him lobbing cream-puff questions at Republican "Factor" guests. I mean, really, wouldn't THAT, I'm saying, not only prototypify his program but crystallize, absolutely, his rank hypocrisy as well? Me? I'm kinda thinking that it would, be Jesus!

P.S.

It really should be noted, though, that, while the label of "liberal" has to a large extent become a negative one, examinations of individual liberal issues (expanding health-care coverage, tax fairness, ending the war in Iraq, stuff like that) reveal them as popular. Kind of incredible, huh, that the right-wing has in fact been able to dominate the agenda the way it has....being on the losing side (as defined by public opinion, I'm saying) of the issues and all. A tip of the cap, I guess you'd have to say, penultimately.

Demon or Dope, You Decide

Dear Laura, Don't you think that maybe, JUST MAYBE, we've reached that point in society where all of these hackneyed dichotomies/demarcations of yours have in fact become limiting, of far less utility, etc.? I mean, I know that the country is divided (probably because of blowhards like you) and that you yourself have essentially created a cottage industry of sorts but, really, to have come to use such labels (liberal, in particular) as a system to belittle and denigrate those on the other side of an issue from you, that's just flat-out freakish, my friend. I'm sorry. Of course, the fact that this mind-numbingly idiotic "either-or" paradigm of yours has in fact been effective (yes, the term, liberal, clearly has become a pejorative in certain circles) to a degree, I guess I really shouldn't blame you for trying, now should I? I mean, you ARE who you ARE, right?

Playground Bully, Laura Ingraham

How despicable is Laura Ingraham, though, folks? I mean, seriously, did you catch her on O'Reilly the other night (2/27)? She actually, I'm saying, as an example of this idiotic culture-war of hers, decided to put an eight year-old boy in her cross-hairs. Apparently, this young boy is transgender and, yes, because of this psychological condition, wants to dress like a girl in school. Well, you would have thought that the boy wanted to perpetrate some great atrocity at school - such in fact was Ms. Ingraham's full lack of empathy/her utterly dismissive and judgemental posture, relative to the child's condition. Hell, she even went as far as to postulate that the youngster himself was "dictating" his "lifestyle" onto the school....................................Of course, what showed her ignorance even more-so was when she referred to his wanting to dress like a girl as him in essence.... acting as a "sexual being". A sexual being! Seriously, folks, that's what she said. It's like come on, Laura (yeah, I'm talking to her now). Gender identity isn't, IS NOT, sexual identity/sexual behavior. It is far, far, FAR, more global than that. Maybe if you read a book (no, the Bible and O'Reilly's "Culture Warrior" do not count) once in a while, gave up on this idiotic goblin-chase of yours, etc.. Just as a suggestion, I'm saying...................................But seriously, though, folks (yes, I'm done talking to her now), has she not become amongst the most vile of them all? Me - I'm definitely starting to think so.

Logic Lacking....Again!

Correct me if I'm wrong here, folks, but didn't the neocons/Bush water-carriers just several months ago say that "Al Qaeda In Iraq" had in fact already been vanquished? They said it as part of their claim that the "surge" was "working" - remember? Yeah? Well, guess what, kids, damned if these same sons of bitches aren't back-peddling/saying in effect that, NO, we can't abandon Iraq now....because "Al Qaeda in Iraq" (drum-roll, please) HASN'T BEEN DEFEATED YET!!! It's like, wow, huh? Talk about a double-headed argument. I mean, seriously, they've either got to be lying now....or they were frigging lying then. It's got to be one or the other, me-buckos, ONE OR THE OTHER. ...................................Ha!, not that they couldn't have been lying both times. THAT is no doubt possible, too (bastards being the way that they are and all)......................................P.S. Of course, Mr. O'Reilly, for one, he's already hedging his bets a bit - focusing on the high cost of oil now as the main reason for us to not get out of Iraq. Incredible, huh? It has to make you wonder what the excuse is going to be next week. Secular progressives in Arabia? I can almost hear it now.

And We Wonder Why the Earth Tilts on its Axis

Gee, what a surprise, O'Reilly siding with McCain over Obama in what was basically a tit-for-tat (McCain saying that there IS Al Qaeda in Iraq, Obama saying/countering yes but that there wasn't prior to our invasion). Of course, the fact that O'Reilly is basically spewing nothing more than the discredited theory of how Saddam was in fact chummy with Al Qaeda (he wasn't) and that he essentially created a safe-haven for Al Zarqawi (he didn't, there was instead a warrant for his arrest) does as well show the length to which he WILL "spin" Republican. And so, no, me-buckos, in that regard rarely does he ever, EVER, truly cease to amaze. Cynicism, etc., notwithstanding.