Null Hypothesis

Gee, Bill, that's impressive. You say you can come up with 30 examples of "hate speech" (as defined by you, of course) off the Daily Kos? Thirty.....out of, what is it now(?), oh yeah, HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF POSTINGS OVER THE YEARS!!!...................Seriously,. though, dude, you really need to take a basic statistics course or something here - this, I'm saying, BEFORE you open your trap to propose such stupidity. I mean, think about it - as opposed to making the other side's argument for them, leading with your face, etc..................And, besides, you should really think about cleaning up your own little web-site first, before you cast dispersions. Hey, do you really ask for people's credit card numbers, prior to letting them post? That's kind of creepy, dude - that, and the whole FOX security, too, I'm saying.

Hyperbolic Idiocy at Work

O'Reilly really needs to make up his mind here. The Daily Kos - are they more like the Nazis, the K.K.K., or Benito Mussolini? I mean, it doesn't seem possible, does it, that all three of these comparisons (each bombastic in their own way, obviously) could simultaneously be true?................... Oh, alright, I guess they could be but, really, does anybody with even a smidgen of common sense here believe that the Daily Kos is comparable to Hitler, Mussolini, and people who used to lynch black people simply out of sheer hatred? Me, I just cant fathom there being anyone. Seriously.

Internet Hall Monitor, Bill O'Reilly

There's this liberal (one might say ultra-liberal) web site, right, the Daily Kos. Apparently they have this format in which anybody can post a response to one of their stories/ editorials. And, yes, occasionally one of these respondents says something that one might consider inappropriate/ over-the-top. Of course, having such a format leaves them open to criticism by blow-hards such as O'Reilly, who somehow, in those little minds of theirs, are able to conflate the opinions of those fringe customers to those of the actual people who run the site.................I don't know. I guess I'm in a quandary here. Part of me thinks that those statements of a vile and incendiary nature probably SHOULD be deleted (if for no other reason that they give O'Reilly "ammo" for his own equally broad/ intolerant brush). Of course, when I start to get a little too close to that notion, so, too, do images of censorship, thought-policing, etc. start to emerge. I mean, it's bad enough that O'Reilly himself stifles debate through intimidation, the diminution of his "adversaries", and more-so. We certainly don't need others doing it, too.................Hey, speaking of hateful rhetoric, did you hear how, in reference to moderate Republican Lincoln Chaffee, Ann Coulter said, "hmmm, looks like they assassinated the wrong Lincoln."? Apparently, O'Reilly hasn't. "Assassinated", she goes!!

Hysteria, By the Bucket

I tell you, though, part of me is really starting to admire O'Reilly. I mean, think about it. He and his minions literally scour the countryside, looking for shit; straw-dogs/ situations that they can cite to as categorical proof of some "culture war". This latest example, I particularly love. It seems that the San Diego Padres (on the same day, apparently) sponsored both a "bat day" and a "gay pride day". I mean, talk about giving it to O'Reilly on a silver-platter here - homosexuals at the same locale as youngsters, intermingling with them, etc.. This, and the fact it was apparently a "Pearl Harbor" job.....on the parents, as well. How despicable - this, according to O'Reilly (the intermingling, in particular, I gather)..................But seriously, though, folks, apart from the somewhat impolitic nature of the Padres' action here, can we at least look at this situation somewhat logically? The fear is that, what, young people will see homosexuals in mass? That they will see them engage each other affectionately? Yeah? Well, first of all, folks, homosexuals are no more or less demonstrative than heterosexuals are (an important point in that the overt displays of affection are apparently what O'Reilly fears). And even when they do in fact display affection, what do you tell the kids? You tell the kids that they love each other - hello! Of course, the fact that homosexuality is largely innate (as opposed to it's being contagious, I'm saying), we probably shouldn't go off the deep-end by worrying about it, either, should we?...................Wow, huh, and it's the kids we've been worrying about.

Challenging the Challenger, but Listening to Him, too

Alright, here's just one example of a Michael Moore-ism. When asked to explain the longer waits for treatments/ appointments/ procedures in Canada, he proceeds to mention the fact that everybody's covered in Canada. This, he compares to the United States, where 47 million people are not covered and, hence, don't even bother to get in line.................A good argument, I initially thought, but, wait a minute here. Is he saying that none of these 47 million ever seek medical help - in the emergency room, clinics, etc.? And what about the fact that the United States has three times as many people as Canada? Would not Canada's lesser population make for a smoother and faster running system? I mean, sure, we probably have a lot more doctors than Canada, too, but, really, I'm kind of thinking that those long lines to the north have more than "universal" coverage to blame for them..................And, no, I'm not saying we shouldn't have universal coverage, not that we shouldn't even have a "single-payer" system, for Christ! All I'm saying is that we really ought to look at ALL available evidence, objectively, before we take a full-blown leap of faith into anything as drastic as this. This, though, I must insist again, at least this guy is talking about something important and, as opposed to FOX, shows a basic concern for working poor.

Two Blind Eyes, See How They Spin

And O'Reilly's such a hypocrite, too. This, I'm saying, in that the son-of-a-bitch rails, unmercifully, whenever a Republican (Giuliani, for instance) is the subject of an investigative report while, at the same time, he and Hannity continue to do hatchet jobs on John Edwards and Hillary Clinton, respectively. I mean, don't get me wrong. The Clintons no doubt probably are a venal pair of politicos but, really, to generalize so idiotically on the media like this....and as deceptively as this, that's about as self-serving as you can ever get................And, yes, what about all the mainstream heat that the Clintons have been on the receiving-end of (Anderson's book, Bernstein's book)? Michael Isakoff, for Christ's sake! I mean, that was him, wasn't it, who broke the whole Monica Lewinsky thing to begin with? Talk about a short-term memory, Mr. O'Reilly, I'm saying.................P.S. He, O'Reilly, probably didn't read, either, the fair-and-balanced (I can't be sued for using that now, right?) piece on Giuliani that Isakoff's rag, NEWSWEEK, wrote on the fellow, the glowing piece it did on Jim Baker, it's moving homage to Gerald Ford, etc.. Ha!, not that any of this would persuade him, of course, stooge-like propensities, obviously, being more to HIS liking. Bill O'Reilly, ladies and gentlemen!

The Medicalization of Dissent, O'Reilly Style

The "Hate Bush Syndrome" -he's actually coined a term for it; a psychological condition, if you will. I mean, it's like, what, he thinks that any criticism to the left of his three-quarters to the right of center position is of a pathological nature? Get serious, I want to tell him. This President has committed perhaps the largest foreign policy blunder in United States history. Weapons of Mass Destruction? Everybody thought he had them? Bullshit!! Hans Blix, Scott Ritter, Muhammad El what's his name - you know, the guys who actually did the weapons inspecting - were extremely skeptical. And that whole mushroom cloud thing, too, I'm saying, I think there might have been a contrary voice or two there, as well..................As for actually "hating" Bush, though, I'm not exactly sure people (most people, anyway) hate him. They just don't like what he's done to the country. Hell, I'd even go as far as to say that the fellow is a well-intentioned individual (as opposed to him being nefarious, I'm saying). But, yes, so, too, was L.B.J. getting us into Vietnam, McKinley with that whole Philippines fiasco. Well-intentioned, in other words, just doesn't cut it, I'm saying - this, as opposed to showing foresight and competency. You know, the stuff we pay our elected leaders for.