Updated 16 January 2003
I've decided that, since the rest of America seems to have
lost its sense of nuance and become incapable of separating
the shit from the Shine-o-la, I'm going to keep a running
page featuring the strange logic that comes from never taking
a course in logic, as evidenced in Bill's famous Talking Points.
Remember 'Talking Points', and how that was a dirty word
when Clinton had them? You remember, way back when, about the
time O'Reilly was on
Inside Edition ? Ah, good
times, good times.
Newest stuff at the top.
16 Jan 2003
Bill really steps in it today. He is a dumb motherfucker who does not
support his assertions with evidence, assuming as all tyrants and idiots
do that a sneer and a shout will discourage disagreement.
---------
The free press was set up in America to report accurately
and to debate important issues. It was not set up to destroy individuals
for their personal beliefs, religious or otherwise.
---------
BIll apparently has no television. Take the recent example of Trent
Lott -- here's a case where the proper role of the press was to destroy this
individual on the basis of his personal beliefs. This is OK, because
as a society, we've consensually decided that it's alright to judge a person
based on their beliefs and ideologies. To make a judgement on the basis
of such information is not prejudice, it is just a judgement.
The press, clearly, *does* tear people down on the basis of their beliefs
-- heck, Bill derides people for their beliefs every single day. And
this is fine, because beliefs are important, and malleable, and they are
something for which the individual is personally responsible. Want
to believe in aliens? Fine, but people are going to think you're nuts.
Want to believe that women shouldn't work? Fine, but you're not
going to get elected.
There's more, though, and it says a lot:
---------
Talking Points believe that, because Christians
are in the majority, some in the press will use any excuse to cut them down.
---------
Ah ha! This is about religion! And this is something about which
I've been thinking a lot lately. The Klan, you shoud expect flak for
that belief, and supply-side economists expect flak, and dirty hippie communists,
but the notion that religion is a belief that you might have to defend, it's
just no good. Religion gets the kind of special belief status that
gays don't, it gets special protection status, it's the affirmative action
of ideas, it need not live up to the standard of scrutiny that ideas about
politics, race, or economics must satisfy. That's what this comes down
to: not that the press isn't allowed to attack you for your beliefs
-- it is, this is stupid. It's that the press isn't allowed to attack
you for your
religious beliefs.
This is pretty arbitrary, and, of course, it demeans religion in the end,
but then, pretty much everything that the faithful do does. In fact,
religion is an ideology, a belief about the way the world does, and should
work. And as we've noted, it is impossible to be prejudiced against
a person on the basis of the fact that they subscribe to an ideology -- the
'pre' disappears from the prejudice, because you know things about them which
are an acceptable basis for judgement. You don't have to wait until
you find out more about a person to judge them if they tell you they believe
in the ideals of the Klan.
The result? The notion that being anti-catholic is bigoted is part
and parcel with the notion that being anti-nazi is a bigotry, that being
anti-klan is a bigotry, that being anti-Heaven's-Gate is a bigotry. Which
is to say that it's always OK to judge people on the basis of their chosen
ideals. Just because there's a God in them, and just because there's
a lot of you, doesn't mean that your ideas are immune from being the basis
for a judgement about you. Hitler had both of those, and he was a dick
because of them.
(This is not to say that it's ok to hate a group on the basis of inaccurately
perceived linked traits -- that Jews are greedy, Muslims terrorists, Catholic
uptight pedophiles. This is bigotry. But is is OK to ask a seemingly
together individual why they would affiliate themselves with a doctrine which
asserts that God has declared homosexuality, women in the workplace, and
the liberation of slaves all to be abominations. If they don't have
an answer, or if their answer is, "well, it's all the word of god except
for that part", then you'll have learned something about them.)
To recap: it's impossible to pre-judge a person within the confines of what
you know about them, and ideologies are accepted bases for such judgement.
Therefore, if a person declares themself to share in an ideology, it
is impossible to be prejudiced about their beliefs in the area covered by
that ideology, since you now know something about them that matters. And
if they're the sort of religious person who doesn't buy into the whole thing,
the burden is on them to make this clear, not on you. They've declared
group membership, and if it's conditional, it's kind of on them to make clear
their special-case status.
Finally, the whammy:
---------
And I do, because we have few moral boundaries left
in America. You can pin that directly on secularism.
---------
I love this sort of comment. So do catholic priests, the Aryan nation,
guys who shoot abortion doctors, guys who fly planes into buildings, cults
throwing around sarin on subway platforms, David Motherfucking Koresh, and
. They show that no one, anywhere, ever learns anything. You
know who had some moral fucking boundaries? The goddamn Taliban, that's
who.
In fact, of coures, all of the big murders happen when people put their faith
in things, and all us atheists ever do is sit around ruminating about where
a real, tenable basis for morality might sit, how we might come to it rationally
-- and most of us have pretty good ideas, ones which can't be shaken by scandal
or which have to be modified to suit dogma, because ours are based in our
brains and in reason and science. They're bulletproof, really, and
if they aren't, we've got mechanisms in place to help us figure out why they
failed, and to make them better. Jesus freaks, they've got it easy
-- God says so -- and hence they never need to give their morality any thought
at all. When you think about it that way, secularism would probably
cause people to think a lot harder about morality than they currently do,
and to be able to work better in a world that changes, and this can only
be a good thing for The World.
But that would require thinking, and Bill simply hasn't got time for it.
Jesus please!
15 Jan 2003
Now, the thing about being a pundit is, you're an idiot, and that's fine,
that's your job. But it seems to me that, in addition to making spurious
statements in the absence of evidence and propogating the presumption that
you're qualified to pass judgement on just about anything, the other qualification
is to find stuff to pundit about. But apparently, this is too much work
for most of these goddamned 24-hour-news geniuses, who choose instead to
eat yesterday's puke and vomit it up again and again and again.
Take Bill's column today:
---------
What Eminem and some other rappers
do, along with gross movies and the anti-social Web sites, is condone destructive
behave. Thus, their message make it's easier for people of weak character
to commit anti-social acts, which, of course, mires many of them deep into
poverty.
---------
Oh my god, Eminem. Do I have to hear about fucking Eminem for the
rest of my goddamned life? Let's ignore for a moment the fact that
Bill doesn't give any evidence -- has *never* given any evidence -- of knowing
the first thing about Eminem beyond the fact that he curses and the fact that
he's white. Let's just put that aside, because Bill's a pundit, he
doesn't have to know what he's talking about.
The problem here is that it's fucking another "Eminem is Evil!" column.
It's another "If we'd all just turn off the radio, everything would
be fine" column. It's fucking Elvis. It's the fucking Beatles.
It's Led Zeppelin. It's the Sex Pistols. It's Jello Motherfucking
Biafra. It's Quiet Riot. It's Black Sabbath. It's Nine
Inch Nails. It's NWA. It's Slipknot. It's Insane Clown
Posse.
Oh my fucking fuck fuck fuck fucking shit god. I can't take this anymore.
I'm about as big a music fan as you're likely to find, and i'm sick
of assholes whose paychecks come from a company that tonight, on my tv, is
going to show a herd of midgets racing an elephant in a DC-10 sled pull tell
me that the problem with America is that people listen to fucking Eminem.
That's not the problem with America. The problem with America
is that we're a bunch of prudish whiny bitches who wish that there were a
simple solution to the problem that our children appear to be insane, when
in reality, kids wouldn't like Eminem in the first place if they didn't already
sympathize with many of the things he says.
---------
The people's choice has two gun-related
convictions, has been sued by his own mother, and, despite his millions, has
an anti-social viewpoint that would crush most individuals, especially ones
without an education. But the media has embraced Eminem, mainstreamed
him, and sent a signal that what he says and does is perfectly fine.
---------
What the fuck planet are you on, Bill? The one where you can go three
days without someone writing an editorial about how Eminem talks about rape
and murder and stealing and ree reee reeeeeeeeeee reeee reeee? Because
that's not The Earth. Around here, your column is a fucking dime a dozen,
every hour on the hour, and it's driving me fucking NUTS. This statement
is a bald-faced lie, and Bill is a liar for making it. Ignore his dishonesty
at your peril! And don't forget his ignorance! An anti-social
viewpoint that would crush bla bla bla bla? Bill's a fucking psychiatrist
now! Bill knows the word anti-social! Bill knows that People
Can Be Crushed -- and he thinks he knows why! Shut the fuck up! Asserting
expertise where you are aware that you have none is intellectually negligent.
It's worse than lying. In many cases, it's prosecutable!
---------
If a young American chooses to have unprotected sex,
take drugs, carry guns, and generally disrespect other people, that American
will fail.
---------
Wrong. I don't think i need to make it clear to anyone that kids do
stupid things, and the great majority of them turn out OK. My brother
threw rocks at a police cruiser when he was 10, and i jumped across the PATH
tracks. I'm a fucking upstanding citizen, and so is my brother. Bill,
therefore, is wrong. This statement is inaccurate.
Clearly, Bill doesn't dislike Eminem for rational reasons, and there are
some. No, the real reason that many people hate Eminem, of course, is
that they don't get it -- what does a rich white man have to be so pissed
off about, anyway? Why won't he stop complaining!?! He's lending
legitimacy and an articulate viewpoint to certain dissatisfied quarters of
the populace! And besides, white people should know better than to act
like this! I mean, the blacks, sure, that's how they were raised, but
--
Sigh.
---------
Dog fitness centers are ridiculous and another example
of God telling us we have too much money.
---------
Gee, i thought he made that pretty clear with the whole "easier for a camel
to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom
of heaven" comment, and then, you know all the turning over of the money-changing
tables, but, you know, if it takes a dog fitness center to teach you what
the bible couldn't, i mean, hey, at least you figured it out. Good for
you.
14 Jan 2003
Very little today. Bill's gotten hard for me to take in my old age.
If you want to think this sloppily, more power to you.
Here's a funny typo:
---------
But none of that really matters any more. Saddam will be removed,
the war of terror will continue.
---------
I can only assume that he means 'the war ON terror', since he's made it
clear that he believes that removing Saddam will have a non-negligible impact
on the Forces of Evil, or, as they like to be known, EvilForce2K3. Bill's
$5.75 an hour journalism intern from Pace has slipped in his transcription,
tho, and what we get is a reasonable statement of my position, with a tired
desparation that is entirely out of place in the midst of Bill's You Can
Do It America bluster. Saddam or not, the terror will continue. Sigh.
Right on!
Back for the attack! 3 Jan 2003
Happy New Year! Bill's been busy, and so have i, but we're both
back. Let's jump right in.
---------
The issue is simple. I don't believe
that falls under freedom of speech privilege. I believe coaching adults to
rape children is a crime. Therefore, I believe, the ACLU is aiding and abetting
a criminal act. Clear?
---------
The issue is simple. I believe clowns who don't wear Kaiser Wilhelm
pointy helmets are a crime. Therefore, I believe, the national clown
commission, which defends the right of clowns to chooe their headgear free
of duress, is abetting a criminal act.
However, I'm not stupid enough to think that everything that i believe
about the law is true. This is how you can tell the difference between
me and Bill. In fact, the reason that we have trials is to figure out
if a law has been broken, and, if so, by whom, because the way our justice
system doesn't work is that some amateur decides what he thinks the law is,
and then we act on it. It's called the rule of law, and Bill hasn't
heard of it. Clear?
---------
Talking Points is looking
forward to the year 2004, and we are very glad the ACLU is happy with our
reporting. And that's The Memo . Don't forget to watch Monday night.
---------
That's great, dingus. Does this mean that i don't have to listen
to you for 12 whole months, or did you not get that proofreader you asked
for for christmas?
---------
The second issue is the threat
of lawsuits by the ACLU to further its agenda. In Newton County, Georgia,
the ACLU threatened a school board with litigation if it didn't remove the
words "Christmas holiday" from the school calendar. The county caved and
removed the words because it couldn't afford to defend the lawsuit.
This, ladies and gentlemen, is
fascism, that is, using the threat of terror, which a lawsuit is, to promote
policy.
---------
Now, i don't know about you, and i realize that the short-on-ideas crowd
has been screaming "TERROR!!!" quite a bit lately, but isn't the notion that
a lawsuit is terror a bit on the -- how shall i put this... -- fucking stupid
side? But it's what he says: "terror, which a lawsuit is". That's
what the Bill would have us believe. I don't even know what to say
here. We should mention this to those whiners whose families were shot
by the sniper, that their lawsuits are acts of terror. Oh, or the women
who got breast cancer from Dow's implants. Terrorists. Oh, or,
well, let's see, i guess Paula Jones filing suit against Clinton, another
terrorist. Won't someone please think of the CHILDREN?!?
Dumb fuck.
Also, fascism can only be perpetrated by a group in power -- look it up.
You can't just decide to just DO facism -- that's like deciding to be CEO
of GM. The ACLU might be fascist, or, more probably, fascistic in tendency,
but this isn't fascism. It's someone with no money not being able
to fight someone with lots. It's America. Eat a dick, Newton
County. Come up with some cash, or shut the fuck up. That's how
it works. Oh, or is Georgia big on redistributing wealth to help close
gaps in standards of living? Lots of communists i don't know about
down there? No? Oh. Then what the hell can i say? You
got the booty end of the money stick. Suck on it. It's not facism,
you're poor. It's the Way Things Work. Maybe you should raise
taxes, you states-rights rednecks.
Oh, wait, I'm supposed to talk about Bill. What a douche.
3 December 2002
Back at it after the holiday, Bill immediately showcases his complete
ignorance of two things he claims to hold in high-regard: our system of government
and Jesus.
---------
The reason was a holiday was to honor a man, Jesus,
whose philosophy that all men are created equal and that one should love
your neighbor helped the founding fathers of the United States craft the
Constitution.
---------
Jesus was a communist revolutionary who said that it was easier for a
camel to get through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter his
father's kingdom, and he was killed for disrupting free trade during a festival.
Don't get me wrong, I think that he was a great guy, but i'm not
sure what's so American about the values that he preached -- which, by
the way, also included not bombing people who were threatening to hurt
you. Bill has the same stupid, non-biblical, nutsack-lacking sheep-petting
non-threatening image of Jesus that all stupid, unread, dull middle Americans
have. The guy got killed for a reason, and it wasn't that he was
too kind or peaceful. He was, by all accounts, a motherfucker.
---------
By almost all accounts, our system of laws and
justice is based on Judeo-Christian philosophy, which puts human rights
ahead of government wants.
---------
Stupid, stupid, stupid. Our system of laws is based on the liberal
democratic ideal, which is derived from a rational examination of man in
nautre, man in society, why he would choose society over nature, and what
we can then deduce that men should have to give up in order to be safe and
maximize their freedoms. Jesus wha? If we're based on Judeo-christian
ideals, where's the amendment stating that we have to honor our fathers
and mothers, or that we can't covet? Where's the ruling against touching
pigskins? Why do slaves count as people at all, when the bible is
very clear on the fact that they don't get to participate? Where,
in fact, is the word 'God' mentioned at all in the Constitution? And
if it isn't, why the heck not? What's particularly Judeo-christian
about a bicameral legislature, or separation of powers? This sort
of statement is complete and total bullshit. The overlap between
the constitution and the bible is non-empty, but so the fuck what? Me
and George Clooney are both carbon-based life-forms who prefer bipedal locomotion
and shun shoplifting -- why, we must be brothers! And my dad's name
is Joseph, too -- holy shit, *i'm* fucking based on JESUS!!! wooohooo!!!
And given that nowhere in the bible are we told not to own slaves or
to give women equal rights, I'm not sure where this 'created equal' shit
comes from. The book is entirely silent on every important issue related
to human rights, right down to Jesus as the happily-persecuted guy who takes
it up the ass when his free speech is infringed upon.
---------
Our system here was not developed according to
Islamic law or Buddhist thought. It was modeled after the tenets of Judaism
and Christianity, and that's the truth.
---------
See, this argument only makes sense if you presume, as Bill does, that
the only basis for moral or legal guidance is in religion. This is
false, as is evidenced by the fact that I don't believe in any of this
bullshit, and I hardly ever stab people in the forehead. If people
spent as much time reading Locke's 2d treatise or any number of writings
by, say, Thomas Paine, Alexander Hamilton, or (gasp!) Ben Franklin as they
spend reading that fucking best-of collection of myths and advice on animal
husbandry, perhaps we wouldn't be a nation of fucking morons (see 22 November).
Oh well.
---------
Easter is a purely religious observance, as is
Hannukah and Ramadan.
---------
Just pointing out a grammar error. I make them, too, but I'm not
rich. Get a proofreader, dickweed.
22 November 2002
This is so funny, you're going to think I made it up. Yesterday,
Bill made fun of Jimmy Carter for living in a world of his own, and said
derisively, "
They love it in Sweden."
Today, he tells us
---------
A new study by the National Geographic Society
said most American students are dunderheads when it comes to geography......Swedish
students scored the highest in this world survey. The USA was at the
bottom.
Since we live in a world that is both dangerous and necessary for our
economic prosperity, American students simply have to learn about other
cultures and people.
---------
Now, let's review. Yesterday, Sweden was a joke, and their endorsement
of an idea was enough to illustrate its stupidity. Today, they lead
the world in the global awareness which is fundamental to functioning well
as a nation in these here troubled times.
There is no need to apologize, to even recognize how stupid this is,
because the reptile brain has a very limited capacity for converting short-term
memories to long-term ones, and no capacity at all for abstract reasoning,
and, hence, Bill's audience isn't likely to spot this contradiction. I
just think it's hysterical, cause it wasn't six months ago that Sweden was
used as a laughing-stock, it was fucking
yesterday. And today,
Bill's happy to point out without a hint of shame or irony that Sweden is
best at this thing which is of dire, perhaps primary importance.
Some days, this is too simple to be really satisfying.
21 November 2002
This is good stuff. It's completely nonsensical, in a particularly
logic-bending kind of way. A particularly good illustration of Bill's
inability to reason, as compared to his ignorance of facts.
---------
Former President Jimmy Carter,
who recently won the Nobel Peace Prize, believes the United States should
take the lead in disarming. Mr. Carter wants America to get rid
of some nuclear weapons and set a good example.
Of course, this might be ridiculous,
especially since we are fighting a war against people who want to kill
us. Now might not be the right time to disarm.
---------
Now, Bill would be the first to assert that this is
'a new kind of war', but for some reason, the weapons that were only good
during the old type, where you were maintaing a balance with another superpower,
well, we've got to hang onto them. This has something to do with
Bill's dick, I'm sure. It blows up, you can pry it from my cold,
dead penis envy.
Second, nobody's talking about 'disarming' in any meaningful
fashion. We're talking about taking apart a few nuclear weapons,
of which we've got more than 5,000 -- and when you consider the fact that
500 would be sufficient to turn back the clock 40,000 years, i'm not exactly
sure how getting rid of 'some' nuclear weapons is anything like 'disarming'.
Bill fails to appreciate a subtlety. Wow.
So 'we are fighting a war against people who want to
kill us', but who are immune to the sort of deterrence nukes represent,
and yet getting rid of a few to show that we're committed to nuclear disarmament
generally, even though that's the end goal of the war, that's ridiculous.
I wasn't clear on this. Hmm. I must be stupid. I
thought we were trying to make the world safer, when it turns out we were
actually only interested in bombing shit. Thanks for helpinig me
out on this, dickweed.
---------
But Mr. Carter also says the reason
for the anger against the United States is that we don't give enough money
to foreign countries. Mr. Carter doesn't mention the trillions Americans
have spent to win the Cold War and police the globe.
---------
How does our winning the Cold War relate to 'giving
money to foreign countries'? That's right, it doesn't. That was
sort of our thing, and at the end of the day, it sort of just petered itself
out, but not before we'd managed to let lots of people starve while we bought
big, long, stiff missiles.
Further, Bill obvious doesn't understand the meaning
of the word 'enough'. It does not mean, as he seems to imply, 'any'.
This is why we have a different word to express that concept. The
statement, "We give money to foriegn countries" and "We don't give enough
money to foreign countries" are in no way exclusive. Bill says that
they are, either because he is stupid, or because he thinks his audience
is. I am not sure whose side I'd take on that one.
Finally, if someone can explain to me how being a policeman
and helping the poor are related, I'd be thrilled. In fact, don't
cops arrest panhandlers? This is either a shitty metaphor, or it's
not at all to Bill's point -- again, it doesn't seem to matter which one.
By the way, what he actually said bears little resemblance to Bill's statement
-- he asserted that
the United States gives only one one-thousandth of its gross national
product for international assistance, while the average European country
gives four times as much. This is true, so Bill Didn't mentio
n it. He also said that "
There is a sense that the United States has become too arrogant, too
dominant, too self-centered, proud of our wealth, believing that we deserve
to be the richest and most powerful and influential nation in the world....I
think they feel that we don't really care about them, which is quite often
true." This is, of course, quite different from what Bill said.
Of course, it's implicit that we should give more, but it's clear
from Carter's actual statement, as opposed to Bill's spin, why policing
and beating up Russians doesn't really count, and isn't the sort of thing
that Carter is talking about.
So Bill simply changed what he said, took the parts that he like and simplified
them, chucking out the verifiable facts which he could not refute. No-spin,
indeed. Carter says there's resentment, Bill hears "this is THE
reason people hate us". Bill is stupid and doesn't know the difference
between the definite and indefinite articles.
---------
Jimmy Carter lives in a world
of his own, and, depending upon your point of view, that world might be ridiculous.
They love it in Sweden.
---------
Without getting into metaphysical questions regarding whether we're
not all living in worlds of our own, which would go right over the Bill's
head, but which are entirely worthwhile, let's look at this perfect example
of what Carter was
actually talking about. They love charity
in Sweden, says Bill, and that might be ridiculous. Yeah. OK.
And Bill wonders at the fact that Carter is reporting, that there
might be a perceived attitude of arrogance and entitlement with regards to
the US. And he says this shit. That the Swedes are ridiculous
for giving four times as much as the US to international assistance. And
he wonders. What a stupid dick. No sense of irony. Not
clever. I used to think that he liked listening to himself speak,
but he can't possibly be doing that, or he wouldn't be able to say shit like
this.
20 November 2002
Two columns with which to deal. First, on NYC's commuter tax.
See below re: the NYC suburbs' love/hate with the city. As
a Brooklynite, fuck you. You don't like it, go live next to some
tinier, shittier city. It's called 'tacit consent', and you're free
to avoid the taxes here by getting the fuck out.
---------
And the commuter tax, I believe, is even unconstitutional, because
it intrudes on freedom of movement.
---------
Dear stupid, so do tolls on bridges. You're a moron. You're
free to go where ever you'd like, you just have to pay. Your whining
sounds like, say, a homeless person whining about the quality of soup
available -- he's free to get a job if he wants better soup, and you're
free to work in Commack.
---------
If that tax is passed, every town in America
could tax you just for showing up. Walk down the street in Abilene,
you could be taxed because you are using that city's sidewalks. Drive
into Mobile, you could be forced to pay an admission fee.
---------
Sigh. Don't you spoiled MF-ers get it? Mobile couldn't
do this because Mobile
sucks. New York can do it because
we're so fucking awesome. You bitches in the burbs have been moaning
for 200 years about how much it sucks to live near us, but you never move,
because you're full of shit. If a crappy town tries this, people
will leave. You live near the greatest city, by far, in America,
with the most stuff, and the most advantages related to proximity. You
won't leave, and we know it. Mobile doesn't have that advantage.
And besides, what, exactly, is wrong with paying for using sidewalks?
There's no ethical issue, really. Bill's just cheap.
---------
This morning, I was talking with
a Nassau County cop who makes $84,000 a year, the highest basic police
pay in the nation. That policeman has three children, and the average
house on Long Island sells for about $250,000. That's the average
house. Property taxes on the island have just been raised to the highest
level in the country.
At the end of the year, that officer's
pay is gone. He's lucky if he can save a few thousand for a college
fund. There is something very, very wrong when $84,000 is just-getting-by
money.
--------
See my last paragraph. New York's expensive. Waaaah, waah,
waah. You want to get by on less loot, move somewhere that isn't
adjacent to someplace so fucking awesome. Go to Iowa or something.
Go to Ithaca. Go to Utah. If you're going to hang out here,
well, what the fuck can I say? New York rules, it creates the wealth
that allows that cop to earn $84,000 a year, and you're going to pay for
that. Don't like it? Get the hell out. Don't like high
property taxes in Nassau? Move somewhere that isn't populated by people
getting rich in the fucking money factory that is my city. Go to Allentown.
Go to Cleveland. Go to Nashville.
But if you hang around here, shut the fuck up. It costs me $300
a month to park my car, which i can't put on the street because of all
the goddamned Nassau county SUVs taking up two spaces apiece. Goddamn
right you owe me some shit. Pay up, or get the fuck out. And
we both know which one it's going to be, you spineless, whiny fucks.
<exhale>. Now onto today's column.
---------
But apparently Mr. Gore simply does not feel
comfortable meeting me face to face. And I am feeling a bit hurt
about that. But I chalk it up to this. Al Gore is used to do
exactly what Al Gore wants to do. Like George W. Bush and many other
politicians, Mr. Gore grew up rich and privileged. He would find
it appalling to have to explain himself to the likes of me, and I would insist
that he answer the questions.
---------
He won't come on your show, and your reaction is to
make up
some shit. And you wonder, then, why he won't come on your show?
With this attentiveness to facts and willingness to spin anything
any way you'd like with or without the dropping of a hat? Fuck, that's
stupid. Maybe he doesn't like you. Maybe he doesn't like Rupert
Murdoch. Maybe he's realized that his book tour, intended to sell
books, not answer fucking talking heads, is wasting its time promoting it
to your reactionary audience.
See, I don't know, and i say so, and I don't even claim to be spin-free.
Bill, however, oh, fuck it. I'm sick of this shit today.
15 November 2002
Bill is still talking about VH1. Because, you know, there's
nothing else going on in the world. He invited someone else onto his show,
and here's what he said:
----------
Hey, Mike, shut up. I resent the fact
that you said that we exploited this woman. We gave this woman a
voice. That's something that you and your stupid newspaper would
never do, you pinhead. You would never do that.
----------
Now, I don't know how you treat your guests, and I don't know if
you invite people to your home to assault them, but I don't. This
is because I'm not a stupid dick. I also don't know if you criticize
an idea by pointing out its flaws, or by calling names. I do the first,
because I'm not a little baby. Here, Bill and I have a disagreement.
He believes that inviting someone over and calling them names and
telling them to shut up is OK. This is because Bill is inconsiderate
and incapable of expressing himself in the form of ideas-which-support-and-imply-a-conclusion,
preferring instead the "You're a doody-head" method of argument popular
on playgrounds across the nation.
----------
Now some of you believe that I'm
getting too passionate about the issue. And maybe you're right.
But if I have to make a mistake, I'll make it in this area. VH-1
and the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette , in my opinion, are harming
the families of the murder victims. And if I can't get angry about
that, then I can't get angry about anything.
----------
The question, stupid, is not whether you're allowed to be mad --
of course you are -- but whether outbursts like this provide any evidence
of the fact that you are a reasonable, clear-thinking, respectful individual.
Go ahead. Be mad. I'm mad. But you're also an
asshole, and that's worthy of objection regardless of the nature of your
opinion. You missed this point. Being right doesn't actually
give you the right to abuse people verbally. It's silly, doesn't
help, and makes you look a little, well, childish.
---------
VH-1 will never recovery from this atrocity
---------
Mmm-hmm. Right. I suspect we'll see them closing up any
day now. And if they don't, well, I guess we can discuss that when
it happens. There's also stuff about how prisoners shouldn't have
a right to creative expression, and some stuff about how prison should be
this and that, stuff about how Bill doesn't get what prison is for, but frankly,
whatever. The issue with Bill has never been the fact that he's wrong,
it's the fact that he's a pompous prick that really gets to me. Ah,
well.
---------
Microsoft Chairman Bill Gates
is offering India a hundred million dollars to fight AIDS. So, when
Mr. Gates visited Hyderabad, India, he was greeted by an eight-foot-tall
condom. Since Paul Bunyon was nowhere in sight, we're guessing the
display was symbolic. Otherwise, it could be ridiculous.
---------
Ah, a true gem: all at once, Bill gets to display a fourth-grade
giddyness toward anything involving sex, ridicule an (admittedly kitschy)
attempt to bring publicitiy to a deadly disease, and show his discomfort
with anything 'symbolic'. That's just great. This is funny,
but it got on your show, and maybe, just maybe, Billy, that's the whole
point of an 8-foot condom. Which would make you a dupe, in addition
to everything else.
14 November 2002
I am suspicious that Bill has no testicles. I have no evidence
of this fact, it is simply a gut feeling, and this feeling should in no
way be interpreted as a claim that he actually has no testicles. I
am making a statment about my own suspicions, not about Bill, hence this
cannot be interpreted as slander.
Bill thinks that we should try bin laden before we capture him.
---------
The Bush administration has been
aggressive in fighting the war on terror. Now it must begin to be
creative. No way on this earth would a public trial of Usama bin
Laden do this country any good. It would inflame Muslim fanatics all
over the world and empower sleazy defense attorneys to trot out every technicality
known to man to make themselves famous.
---------
First of all, trying a person is not part of a war. Nuremberg
wasn't a war. Exiling Napoleon to Elba wasn't a war. But in Bill's
thinking, Usama's hiding in a cave with a remote controll connected to a
huge vat of Terrorism, and he's just doling it out, and hence, if we could
just put him on trial, we'd all be safe. Bill thinks this because he
is stupid.
Whether trying bin laden is important to you really depends
on what you think the justice system, our justice system, is for, and why
we apply it. The fact of the matter is, unlike Christians, the justice
system is not so stupid as to think that if you say you're sorry, all accounts
are settled. This is because perceived risk of punishment is a deterrent
to potential future offenders. The justice system, is not, in fact,
for justice. It is actually for safety and order. In fact, this
is all the government is for at all in the first place -- just ask John Locke.
So what about bin laden? If our justice system
applies in this situation at all, it would be to either prevent him from
doing more bad things, or to discourage others who might do similar bad
things. Case one we're covering by bombing the shit out of things.
We know very well that putting people in prison isn't going to make
much of a difference here -- if we thought it would, we'd be issuing warrants
rather than shooting people and rounding people up in Guantanamo without
any associated legal action. Put succinctly, the 'prevent his future
evils' is something that we've decided the military should handle. And
as far as case two, prevent emulation, i'm not sure how executing him is
going to calm down the other lunatics.
The justice system has no role in this case. It
cannot serve to protect us or deter future like acts. If we feel
like killing Usama, fine. But trying him? You'd have to have
a pretty naive notion of what our courts are for to believe that.
---------
Any proceeding against Bin Laden
must be handled by the military and must be done quickly and discreetly.
We do not need a public spectacle that would put us all in danger.
---------
Oh. Wait, what? Why? Oh, that's right,
because Bill said so. I'm surprised he wasted two sentences explaining
himself.
---------
So let's go to trial now.
Surely the government has enough evidence, and if they don't, they should
tell us they don't. If Bin Laden wants to mouth off and continue
to threaten Americans, fine. But we have the right to put him on
trial right now.
---------
As a child, Bill wasn't allowed in the Hicksville Cool Kids clubhouse,
so he formed his own with his dog and his imaginary crime-fighting friends,
Elihu and Mary-Ellen. This is why he thinks that we should have a
trial with no defendant. Who needs their stupid club for jerks anyway?
We'll just have our own trial, and we won't even
let him
come. Jerk.
You know how we've all decided that We Will Never Forget? Well,
while we're being all solemn and sacred and shit, you know, and watching
The Bachelor on Fox network, which employs Bill, we should also
put people we can't catch on trial -- because We Will Not Be Defeated!
Yeah, that's right -- did you hear me, hiding in your cave there,
immune to my punishment and out of my reach? We're going to fake
condemn you! Oooooh!!!!! Now you're in for it!!!! The
president told everyone that we'd hunt you down and catch you, and, well,
he can't, but that doesn't mean we're not going to have a play trial! Of
course, we're also bombing everything, so I'm not sure what this trial is
actually
for, and given that Bill wants to avoid impropriety, i'm
not sure why he doesn't want to do this by the book, but boy golly, you are
SO about to be tried in absentia.
That laughter at the edge of your hearing is coming from a guilty
man in a cave.
12 November 2002
Bill's attacking VH1 again. The economy's in the crapper,
we're less safe than ever, we might go to war, and Bill's attacking VH1.
Yawn.
---------
Now VH-1 has done the same thing again, featuring a concert
with two more convicted murderers. And this time, we're going to hold
the sponsors and the host accountable.
---------
Bill, I'm going to say this one more fucking time: you get
your paycheck from the people who invented Cops, Married: With Children,
and Celebrity Boxing. Now SHUT THE FUCK UP, you STUPID HYPOCRITE.
Is this show ridiculous? Yeah. Is there any room for moralization
from an individual employed by an arm of Fox? Maaaaaaaaaaybe not.
---------
Once again, Factor viewers made a positive contribution
to this country. I'm not surprised. I mean, I know I'm going
to get accused of patronizing the audience, but we have the most generous
and the smartest audience, no question.
---------
Dear America -- If you think that giving a few thousand dollars
to a charity because a famous person told you to is evidence of kindness
rather than malleability, you're even stupider than Bill clearly thinks
you are. If you think that kindness and intelligence have anything
to do with one another, in any event, please email me and let me know
whether you use post-it notes or tattos to remind yourself to keep breathing.
Bill: My watchers are kind. And therefore, intelligent! But
please don't accuse me of patronizing them, because they're too smart
for that! Ha ha! Can I have my check now, Mr. Murdoch, or do
you need me to make a cameo on
30 Seconds to Fame? VH1 sucks!
Everyone is a fucking idiot, and Bill is their leader. Congratulations.
11 November 2002
Writing this page is getting exhausting. It's like trying
to reason with a born-again -- it seems like a good idea, since this
person is obviously a superstitious moron, but where is applying rules
of argument and deduction going to get you with an individual who doesn't
feel it's necessary to have a reason to believe a thing? Sigh. Nonetheless,
here's some short ones:
---------
But that is all over because of talk radio
and Fox News. The right is now able to get its message out, but
so is the left.
---------
OK, as long as your column isn't a fit of masturbatory self-congratulations.
Too bad the oldest continuously published daily in america, the
NY Post, is owned by a right-wing nut, and run as a mouthpiece for those
views. But if you feel like being first on the scene, we can pretend
that Fox News was started by effing Alexander Hamilton, too. Lies,
lies, lies. Or maybe ignorance. I don't know which is worse.
I used to think it was lies, but when we've all decided that no one
is burdened with having a reason for saying the things they do, how the
heck am I supposed to tell the difference?
--------
It is vile rap star Eminem, who's
being praised all over the place for his acting in a new movie that opens
today.
While this guy might be a great
actor, I don't know and I don't care. He's a true villain because
he has reached fame and fortune by pandering to the lowest element of
our society and providing an incredibly coarse example to America's children.
---------
Bill, you're a stupid prude ignoramus. If anyone has failed,
it must be the millions of parents raising the millions of kids, mostly
white, who have purchased his albums. Let's put the blame where
it belongs -- the parents who raise kids who want his music, and who give
them the money to buy it. Family values are a fucking crock, because
in a day and age when everyone's paying them lip-service, Eminem's numero
fucking uno. But because these people are Bill's viewers, Eminem is
the cause, not the symptom. Oh. Ok. Because record labels
are in the business of choosing artists who push the artform, rather than
ones who fill a ready-made niche. Sure.
Anyway, he reached fame and fortune by being a fantastic rapper
with tremendous charisma and the best production in all of hip hop.
Bill wouldn't know this, because solo Lionel Richie is about as
funky as his record collection gets, and even then, he doesn't like all
the sex-talk. I'll bet dollars to donuts that the last time Bill
heard anyone rapping, it was at a wedding in Oyster Bay, where he danced
to Push It by Salt and Pepper.
But, see the Sopranos article. If Bill had it his way, we'd
all listen to Hank Williams, Jr., watch Reba, and the walls of the smithsonian
would be covered with velvet clowns. Art which reminds us that
there's anything less than peachy-keen in the world is just too much
for his pea-brain to handle. I assume he finds Guernica repugnant
and has called for the removal of Wagner from record stores. Right
now, in fact, I would hope that he's penning tonight's talking points,
decrying the entire notion of the anti-Hero, and re-writing the Catcher
in the Rye to star a well-adjusted church-going fireman, because isn't
that the sort of thing we should all be reading about?
Bill is too stupid and unsophisticated for a lot of things, and
commenting on mediums in which he is completely ignorant of the past,
present, and future is one such thing. God, I wish he'd shut the
hell up. I mean, politics, fine, go ahead. But popular music,
I mean, jesus, doesn't he have any shame whatsoever? Could his opinions
be less-informed or more unsophisticaed on their faces? Sure, Eminem
has said some fairly offensive things, but there's some question as to
whether his most impressive capacity is to construct cohesive personas
through which to express himself, independent of his own personality or
identity. Does Eminem hate gays? Probably, maybe, i don't know.
But the score as far as "Number of Times He's killed someone" vs
"Number of times he's talked about it" is a shameful ser to about a billion.
Has this occurred to Bill? No, because he's a stupid idiot
whose mouth is connected directly to his reptile brain, precluding the possibility
that he might ever give voice to a complex thought.
Puke.
ps -- before bill talks shit about pandering, perhaps we should
remember his time on
Inside Edition. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!
5 November 2002
Ah, the crispness, the coolness of fall is upon us, and Bill's
still not making sense. There's also a fantastic article on his
lying
here
. Only one worth mentioning today, a run-of-the-mill example
of Bill's freedom from the need to consistently apply his principles:
---------
Only a third of registered voters are expected
to turn up at the polls, and that's because we have plenty of stale
candidates running, people who will take the power you give them and
change nothing.
---------
Now, let's be clear here. The American people look to the
government too much when, say, they demand that it give them jobs, health
care, or policing that doesn't accidentally shoot them 41 times. So
says compassionate conservative O'Reilly.
But somehow, when Americans can't get off their fat, bible-beating,
gun-toting, SUV-driving, O'Reilly-watching asses to take an opportunity
that arises only once every two years to actually have a direct voice
in the execution of their democracy IT'S THE POLITICIANS' FAULT. See
how that doesn't make any sense at all? Should I explain it to you,
the part about personal responsibility, etc.? Bill assumes that politicians
give a shit whether we vote or not, which is dumb. We've got a
president who didn't get half the votes of the 40 % of americans who
decided to show up walking around spouting bible verses, and Bill thinks
that anyone cares who votes?
This is like saying that the unemployed are jobless because they
can't find any jobs that they like. If only there were better
employment opportunitites, these people would take them -- who can blame
them for being unimpressed with what's available? How's that strike
you, Bill-O?
"People don't vote because politicians suck." No, fucknut,
politicians suck because people are stupid and easily-manipulated.
Do you really think that we can measure the quality of the elected
by voter turnout? Do you really think that corelation (which Bill
doesn't even establish as a mathematical fact) is causation here? See,
because i think that people don't vote because of the fact that they've
got more channels than ever to watch -- this is an easy correlation to
establish. Ban TV, it's a threat to democracy? There's a
better case for that than Bill's posited relation of turnout to quality.
Bill supposes that the non-voters are too opinionated to vote,
I say they're too lazy and stupid. Look around you, take it in,
and then you decide on whose theory you're going to put your money.
He spoke, and drank rapidly a glass of water.
30 October 2002
Bill has been busy, and so have I. He actually didn't
have anything new for a few days, and yesterday was more bla bla bla.
Today, however, it's about the INS. Re the sniper:
---------
Before we get to the facts, please
think about the 13 Americans shot down by Malvo and John Muhammad.
Ten of those people are dead. And they were folks like you and
me. They got up, went to work or school, and were killed by two
out-of-control cowardly individuals.
---------
Yawn. And when you're done with that, reflect upon the
fact that 30K people a year get shot, and during the ten day killing
spree, over 400 were killed by drunk drivers. People are shitty,
and die, and it sucks. Outlaw cars and drinking and hunting.
---------
They got up, went to work or school, and
were killed by two out-of-control cowardly individuals.
---------
Why do we leap to 'cowardly' lately? Is a Navy Seal cowardly
for hiding? Is stealth cowardly? Is the prevent defense
cowardly? Well, OK, maybe the last one is a bad example.
These guys were loons, and cruel, and maybe insane. But
cowardly? There's a big bucket of epithets at every commentator's
desk, and they seem to just be reaching into it and chucking stuff when
they're at a loss -- "These cowardly terrorist butchers!" Bla, bla,
bla.
You keep using that word -- i do not think it means what you
think it means.
---------
the Border Patrol arrested Malvo and his
mother, Uma James, last December. Here are the arrest reports,
and they clearly state that the two were in the USA illegally.......
There is no question the INS has
failed to meet its mandate to control illegal immigration into the
United States. The Census Bureau estimates that as many as 13
million foreigners are running around this country unsupervised.
The government simply does not know who they are or whether they are.
Under President Clinton and Attorney
General Janet Reno the illegal immigrant problem exploded into chaos,
and now, under President Bush and John Ashcroft, it is getting even
worse, despite the fact that three of the 9/11 killers were in this
country illegally.
--------
...in which the author satisfies his contractual agreement
with Fox to mention president Clinton in a negative light thrice per
fortnight. If you've got a few hours to kill, why not hunt down
the number of times that Bill has mentioned the pat on the back that
Donald Rumsfeld gave one Saddam Hussein right after he gassed his own
people. But Bill's double standards are neither here nor there.
The thing that i'd like you to note, in the course of
agreeing to describe this INS-bashing as 'masturbatory' is the fact
that ninteen minus three is sixteen. This is important, because
the INS is all screwed up, bla bla bla, three hijackers !!!!9-11!!!,
bla bla bla, but really, five out of six people smashing 747's into buildings
were here legally.
Now, I'm not saying that there aren't INS issues --
obviously, there are. But all Bill's really done here is look for the
chance to shout "9-11!!", when, in fact, if the INS had executed perfectly,
the difference would have been, ah, well, i guess 16 hijackers would have
had to do the work of 19, assuming they couldn't find anyone else to fill
their spots. It's completely disengenuous and exploitative.
The fact of the matter is that we've got a spectacular
case perpetrated by an illegal which is entirely insignificant compared
to the numbers of murders and thefts perpetrated by card-carrying Americans.
On which does Bill care to fixate? The one to which there's
a solution even the drummer for Abba could have figured out, of course.
Write your congressperson! Never forget! End the madness!
And by this time tomorrow, 7 more people will have been
murdered by guns and two dozen more will have been run over by red-blooded
American drunks. Thanks for the distraction, Bill.
---------
Forbes magazine is out
with the richest politicians in America, not in spirit, but in cash.
New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg leads the list. He's worth
$5 billion, and he wants to raise the bridge tolls.
---------
And Bush and Cheney have their hands in oil, and want
to invade Iraq. But, of course, Bill pays for all of his work-related
photocopies.
More typical whining from self-loathing Long Island
lunatics who love the city almost as much as they hate it. Fuck you.
You want to drive into my city to see Phantom on a Sunday, adding to
traffic, taking up a parking space, polluting and gawking, instead of lowering
yourself to taking a train? Waaah, waaah, waah. And, i repeat,
fuck you. This is a cheap accusation, and if your commuting ass doesn't
like it, maybe you should stop earning your money in the city and then running
back to your gated communities, and maybe Bush should recoup the lost
tax revenue related to the religious institutions he can't seem to
stop fellating.
---------
Five out of the 10 richest are
Democrats, four Republicans, one independent.
Ridiculous? Depends on how
they made the dough.
---------
If anyone can tell me what the hell this means, I'd
appreciate it. There are no rich democrats? Is this guy this
stupid? I'm a pretty sharp guy, and I always thought that if you're
going to point out a contradiction, you need to point out how you'd expect
the guilty individuals to act, and illustrate how they've failed.
Socrates is a man.
Socrates is rich.
Socrates is ridiculous.
Therefore, what the fuck is Bill talking about?
Cogito, ergo fuck you, moron.
24 October 2002
This job is too easy. From October 14's Talking Points,
entitled, "The Sniper and the Media".
--------
In my opinion, the sniper is loving
the action, the attention, and the game in general. He shoots and then
probably runs home to watch the spectacle play out on television.
Talking Points does not
want to be a part of that.....
---------
Today's headline at foxnews.com/oreilly, right next to a photo
of the newly-arrested guys, and right above the link for buying autographed
O'Reilly hollow-points:
--------
Two Arrests in Sniper Case
We'll have complete coverage of the arrests and the aftermath...
Who are these men? How did police find them? We'll have some No Spin
answers for you
--------
There are times when the word 'whore' leaps into my consciousness
for reasons i can't explain, but i don't want to slander anyone, so
I'll just let the obvious be the obvious.
It's funny, too -- you click on the link to buy autographed
O'Reilly books, and today, you get the headline at worldnetdaily.com:
'
Muslim arrested in Beltway case
Ah. No-spin, indeed. What's that brain? Why
do you keep shouting "Whore!!!"??? Keep it down in there --
I'm trying to read this story in the Times, "Negro Robs Grocery Store,
If you know what I mean...."
23 October 2002
Only one is neccessary today. Most of the column is
semi-coherent blather about how our weakness is our freedom and other
such garbage. Here, though, is why I get up in the morning:
---------
The slogan "Virginia is for Lovers"
is a known nationwide, but now there's a T-shirt that says "Virginia
is for Snipers." The guy making the T-shirt, Lawrence Lindbergh,
says the slogan is a little positive toward the sniper, but "It was
so catchy, I just went with it."
Hey, Lawrence, you're ridiculous.
Nobody-- nobody-- should be making money off this horrendous situation.
Capiche?
---------
Bill works for FOX MOTHERFUCKING NEWS, which sets its
advertising rates on the basis of its viewership, which goes up during
times of crisis. When you look at it this way, Bill's making
money off of horrendous situations each and every day.
So today, unlike most days, Bill's hypocrisy outshines
his sexual insecurity. Mark your calendar!
22 October 2002
I went to tecmo superbowl weekend this weekend, and missed
some time. During this period, Bill did the usual things, talked
a lot about VH1 for reasons completely beyond my ability to comprehend,
unless VH1 has all of a sudden gotten its hands on some senate seats
or has started running the schools or something. Last I heard, they
were a shitty low-ratings cable channel that someone, probably the Simpsons,
referred to as "the Music Channel for People who Don't Like Music". But
apparently they're all Evil now, and Bill is to be thanked for saving
us all from missing it.
Here's a winner.
---------
Beat cops in every neighborhood know who
the criminals are. And believe me, they would not be allowed to operate
openly in wealthy neighborhoods. We are supposed to have equal justice
for all in this country. We do not......
It is the churches in alliance
with law-abiding Americans that can put pressure on criminals who
are now running wild. That's the only solution to the chaos that is
infecting poor neighborhoods from coast to coast.
---------
Now notice -- Bill here clearly indicates that if the
neighborhoods were better off, the criminals wouldn't be allowed
to run around. But the only solution, it seems, is the poor going
to church. It doesn't even occur to him that making the neighborhoods
wealthier might help, no, that's ridiculous -- the poor are the poor,
it's a quality that inheres in their persons, just like how it was
silly to start calling slaves 'enslaved persons' -- they have no identity
beyond the fact that they get shit on. They are, in short, irredeemable,
and in typical facist-religious karl-marx-lovin' fashion, Bill (wait
for it, really) proposes sending the poor and miserable to church. Not
that it's the opiate of the masses or anything, but boy howdy that'd
be cheaper and easier than actually helping them.
This is, in short, both disgusting and unoriginal.
Now for a feature I'm considering making into a page
of its own, dealing with Bill's clearly deep-rooted issues surrounding
sexual identity.
---------
The women of India have spoken.
If you're some tall, good-looking guy, forget it in Calcutta. Research's
out that says the ladies there want understanding men who don't drink
but like to fool around and have a little skill in that area.
Well, since I don't know any guys like
that, I can't recommend them to you over there in India.
--------
Now, it may be that he's joking, in which case this
is just another moron's failed attempt at humour, or sarcasm, or something.
But I don't think so. Bill, we have seen, was bullied as a child,
and is also filled with self-hatred. The result is the above: the dismissal
of the 'understanding' man, the non-macho-marlboro-punching-will-solve-my-problems
guy, and the denial that he has even heard of "guys like
that", by whom he means "fucking homos", or at best, "pansies".
Of course, Bill is neither tall nor good-looking, and
while he may drink, it's obvious that he's dismissing the idea that
he must have of himself. That would explain why he brought it
up at all -- i mean, what, has he taken an interest in the calcutta edition
of Cosmo? 10 Ways to Drive Your Lover Crazy While Fighting over
Kashmir!
So here's what happened. Little Bill, in or around
11th grade, is finally realizing that being clever might make up for
his horrible acne, his general bookishness, and his dearth of friends.
Slowly, over the course of month, he ingratiates himself to one
of the bottom-feeding cliques at Whereeverthefuck, L.I. High School,
gaining some level of entry therein. Finally, junior prom rolls
around, and Bill brings himself to ask a girl of only slightly higher
social station, and, amazingly, she says yes. Bill's ecstatic.
He feels good about himself for the first time, and good about the
world.
And then she stands him up to go with someone taller, better-looking,
who drinks and fights and winds up impregnating her in his Datsun.
Poor, poor Little Bill. The rest, of course, is history.
I hate myself! I'm so awful! Probably he contemplated
suicide, and eventually, he came to believe that this girl was right
to ditch him, and that he was deserving of her scorn. Fast forward
30 years, and Bill has almost got himself believing that, if he had it
to do over today, he'd be the big stupid meathead she dumped him for.
But hey, that's just a guess.
16 October 2002
I was out sick yesterday, and today's TP is more garbage
about hope and freedom, so I' going to look at yesterday's column
instead, because it's about Bill's personal taste, and is really funny.
---------
Like Marlon Brando's Don Corleone,
Tony comes across with some dignity. That kind of entertainment
creates confusion among those of us who become emotionally involved
with the Soprano characters.
---------
That a killer might have dignity can come as a surprise
only to the sort of simple-minded individual who believes that 'a
good person' and 'a bad person' are simple things. Bill must
believe this, because, as we've seen below, everything that comes out
of his mouth hinges upon the assumption that the world is very, very simple
(henceforth to be referred to as Bill O'Reilly Simplicity-Dependent Rhetoric).
In fact, those of us in The World know that lots of upstanding
people are complete flakes, that veterans of vietnam sometimes punch their
kids, that bad people often tip well or scoop after their dogs. The
notion that a dignified criminal, even a murder, should be confusing is powerful
evidence of O'Reilly's complete inability to fathom subtlety or complexity.
Here, of course, we're talking about TV, but it's just as true when
he starts talking about What's Best for People or Why We Must Fight.
---------
...... the terrible acts that Tony
and his thugs commit are not condoned or encouraged on the show, while the
rappers make their degeneracy look like fun and games.
--------
Spoken like a man who has never watched the Sopranos,
listened to Nas, or read Paradise Lost. Let's look at all three.
First of all, the acts that Tony, et. al. commit are not
condoned or encouraged, but they are not discouraged. In fact,
the only measure in which 'good' or 'bad' might be said to enter into
the show is in fear of reprisal, either by the police or by fellow
thugs. All in all, the show is completely value-neutral, with
its focus on the effectiveness of Tony's acts, rather than their moral
worth. And, as we've said, Tony acts with dignity. He's
effective. He's respected. He's Just Doing His Job. And
he's the show's hero. Some lesson.
Second, Nas. Now, sure, you could mistake Ludacris
for serious art, carrying and re-inforcing the values of the culture
-- you could make this mistake, IF HIS NAME WASN'T FUCKING LUDACRIS
. I've got this album, I've got a lot of albums, hip
hop and not, and it's about as dangerous as, oh, let's say the Twist.
You're coming up shorter than five Danny DeVitos. Hoes in
different area codes. It's stupid. Good, but stupid.
The point, though, is that the only sort of person who
sees this as anything other than what it is is someone who has decided
to pick a part of a culture out of its context, examine it in an ignorant
vacuum, and get all sanctimonious without bothering to think things
through. The fact is, hip hop has its clowns, and the notion
that the thuggery there isn't painted in a negative light is ridiculous
-- Nas being probably the best, most famous example, but including lots
of others like the Roots, De La, Onyx (yes, seriously, all we got iz
us was a pretty good album), and even guys like Biggie, to a degree. Ludacris
is joking -- some people make art by talking about things seriously,
he doesn't. It's just that Bill doesn't get it. Surprise.
Finally, Paradise Lost, a book that has been close to
my heart for many years now. For those of you who haven't read
it, do. Milton was a religious maniac, a complete loon, holier
and more true to virtue than Bill O'Reilly, to be sure. And when
he wrote his epic poem about Man's fall from Grace, he made Satan the
hero. Just like Bill, he knew that Good and Evil were at war. And
just like Bill, he knew that Evil was doomed to failure in the face of
resolute Good. And he knew that Evil was tempting, even to the
Good, and that you might be inclined to try and protect the Good -- as
with Bill and Ludacris.
But Milton was smart enough to know that you can't protect
people from Evil, and that it doesn't matter, because that's the
way it is. He was smart enough to know that, while we need not
be happy with Evil, most of the interesting things that occur do so because
of the antagonisms that the presence of Evil in a Good-inclined world
creates. It's worth talking about. Bill's discomfort with
his enjoyment of the Sopranos, his confusion, stems from his unwillingness
to admit this simple fact of life, that conflict is more interesting than
harmony, that in the absence of tension, it's very easy to fall asleep,
that it's what makes life. "Remember the time that we took the
subway to work, and it didn't break down and we didn't see anything wierd
happen and you didn't forget your coat?" "Yeah" "Me too." "Snore."
That's Bill's perfect world. That's his idea of Heaven, and
he thinks it might really happen.
So he makes things up about the relative level of instructiveness
of Ludacris vs the Sopranos, and conculdes, somehow, that Ludacris
is more likely to be taken seriously as the purveyor of reasonable
moral lessons, and that, hence, it's ok for him to like the Sopranos.
This, I think you'll agree, is stupid, but it's clear that Bill
doesn't really believe it, but feels he must, because his view of The
World and the Roles of Good and Evil in it are so utterly simple as to
be completely incompatible with what even his Commack taste knows -- that
trouble is interesting, that problems and subtlety are good for your
brain and your soul, and that things are not as simple as they seem. For
Bill, these simple recognitions are a guilty pleasure. This is why
moralists are so stupid -- they waste so much of their brain power and
thinking time trying to fit a muddy, messy world into their pristine paradigms.
Best of luck with that.
So there you go. Let me buy you a pack of gum,
I'll show you how to chew it.
14 October 2002
I was away this weekend and missed a couple of days.
On the topic of Bill's 11 Oct column, two things are worth
comment:
---------
The dictionary defines evil as
"something that brings sorrow, distress or calamity," but a hurricane
can do that, and hurricanes aren't evil. Only people are, because
they bring pain by their own free will.
---------
That's right, folks, Bill is now a better source for
word meaning than the dictionary. He's also a better source
for corn bread recipes than the Joy of Cooking, and a better source
of advice on cellular mitosis than any doctor.
The laughability of Bill's ability to re-define words
as he sees fit isn't the important issue, though -- it's the more
general sickness of which this particular target for re-definition
is but an example. 'Evil' is the new 'terrorism'. It's
the anti-mom-and-apple-pie. It's like Ice 9 in the way it spreads
-- to
question its use is to side with Evil. It's creepy,
all in all, because it ends discussion, especially lately. In
fact, in this TP, Bill repeatedly uses 'Evil' as though it were an entire
sentence -- "Evil."
The problem is that Bill doesn't actually define what
it is. It's not a hurricane. Apparently it's bringing
pain by your own free will, but a soldier shooting at another soldier
in battle is willingly bringing pain, so that can't be what he means.
Separating an unfit mother from her kids brings pain, but that
can't be evil. Why, chemotherapy brings pain of one's own will,
so that can't be what Bill means. It can't be about pain as
a result of free will. And if it's not that, what does Bill leave
us with as an alternative? Nothing. He just starts shouting
the word, presenting it as the beginning and end of various arguments.
It's tiring to see a guy so into being right incapable of even
understanding what that would entail.
But there's more, and this is the one that really gets
me going, of late:
---------
I laid out a case to that writer that
was undeniable. His response? I don't care. Evil.
---------
Now, Bill's a Catholic. He goes on to point out
how he used to give money to The Church. And he's mad because
his air-tight, evidence-based case against this writer was ignored.
Let's say it again -- Bill recognizes that it is unethical
to believe a thing in the absence of evidence of its accuracy, but
he's a catholic. He believes in an omnipotent,
omniscient, benevolent God. This God is good, cares about
us, and can do anything. And Bill lives in The World, or some
version of it, so he knows about the Evil problem -- bad things happening
to good people. Never mind that the bible is full of unfulfilled
predictions, contradictions and morally-questionable suggestions. Never
mind that the only evidence that we have of God is the Bible and the only
reason we believe the Bible is because of God. Never mind the million
and one opportunities that the faithful have had to show hard evidence
of their deity, failing at every instance. Bill thinks that ignoring
facts is EVIL, but he believes in an invisible super-hero who lives in outerspace
who's going to kick the shit out of the Jews, the Muslims, me, and the Whore
of Babylon ANY DAY NOW, but who's too busy getting ready for this to do
anything about the EVIL which Bill has thoughtfully located lurking in
just about every corner of the world.
The kicker, of course -- follow me here --
A. According to el Biblioso, everything that happens
is because of God's will.
B. People experience pain.
C. One who causes pain of his free will is evil.
Therefore -- say it with me -- by Bill's own definition,
the Catholic God is evil! Ladies and gentlemen, Bill O'Reilly
is a stupid heathen, and he doesn't even know it. Say hi to
Usama for me, Einstein!
9 October 2002
Today's TP is great. I'm really starting to
figure this guy out -- there's a coherent and constant set of dysfunctions
at work. So we're talking about the 200 kids who showed
up drunk at a dance in Scarsdale.
--------
200 kids showed up drunk to a dance.....only 10 percent
of the students have been suspended.
--------
Actually, 28 were suspended immediately, and several
more were suspended over the next week. Now, correct me if
i'm wrong, but 28*100/200 = 14 %, and that's only the ones who were
suspended the very next school day. So, this is just false.
Sorry, Bill.
---------
Quote, "The students will have the full
support of the school in presenting themselves in the best possible
light, but they must take ownership of what happened, accept the suspension,
and move on."Now, whenever you hear this kind of PC-speak from anyone
in a position of power, you know there's a big problem. Take ownership?
Give me a break. Every kid that showed up intoxicated to that dance
should have been suspended, not just a few of them
---------
Now there's two things wrong here. First, give
you a break, because the guy calls on the kids to take ownership?
What is it about asking them to be responsible that bothers
you, Bill? Two, statement two has nothing to do with anything
else -- a particular kid should take responsibility
regardless of
whether everyone is punished fairly or not. Surely, Bill
wouldn't approve of the kids who did get punished whining, "Why should
*I* have to go to detention when *they* don't?!?!?" -- responsibility
and integrity are independent of fairness. And what does this have
to do with the guy's statement, anyway? Everyone should have been
suspended THEREFORE this guy shouldn't have told anyone to accept their
suspension? As is his wont, Bill has leapt here, and God knows
which logical back road you're going to find yourself on when he does.
Also, PC speak? What? Where? Isn't
that when you say 'Afro-American' instead of 'colored'? Or
had Bill just gone more than three days without hurling the dreaded
'PC' at anyone and figured he'd better throw it in, before someone threw
it at *him*?
---------
It is clear he cannot control the school
environment and that the students do not fear him.
---------
Oh. Because they got drunk at their parents'
houses, and then the principal suspended a bunch of them and banned
dances. Or is it because of the incredible record of violence
and poor grades in the district that he concludes that this guy is
letting things run riot? Oh, wait, there isn't that in Scarsdale.
More important, though, is the *and* in this sentence.
In fact, the guy clearly can control the school, at least
when all the kids aren't drunk -- for more on the school's 96 % success
rate on reading, writing, and math competency tests or its 0.4 %
dropout rate, please see
here.
Bill's assessment is at odds with the facts
-- this guy does run a tight ship. But what about that *and*?
Well, the only thing I can take it to mean is that because
the students don't fear him, he can't administer well. His
track record, the fact that the school is fantastic, demonstrates
the falsehood not just of Bill's statement about his lack of control,
but also of his faulty logic -- there is no 1-1 correlation between
fear and control. This guy controls without fear.
---------
Trust me. I'm the principal of Scarsdale
High, that doesn't happen. I'm the youth officer, some affluent
parents are in cuffs. And if the higher-ups don't back me up, I'm
on The Factor pointing fingers.
---------
And you're still fired. Because Scarsdale, like
the rest of the country, is a participatory democracy, where everyone
wants what's best for themselves. In any community, parents
don't want their kids to get suspended, and they don't want the cops
arresting them. You suspend 200 kids, some less drunk than
others, some, maybe, not drunk at all, parents go nuts, the superintendent
fires you. You go on The Factor, the affluent parents defend
one another to acquittal, and then you go looking for work. Hooray
for you, Bill. Way to Get The Job Done (c)!
Every small town would like to solve its own problems,
as would every family -- see Noelle Bush getting caught with crack
*in the MFing rehab center* and not getting kicked out. This
is just the way it works. Is it fair? I mean, who knows?
Is it justice -- TO THE X-TREEEEEM!!!!! ?? No, but who really
cares? These kids are all going to go to college and to become accountants,
and besides, at least 28 were suspended, most likely more. What
would have warranted suspension, by the way? Being with a drunk
kid? Half a beer? One beer? A single stagger? Two?
Every such episode is about judgement. And Bill knows what
he read on the wire.
The funny part, the close-to-home, is that Bill actually
lives in suburban New York, in a place a lot like Scarsdale. My
guess is he just hates it when they egg his house or when they make
him feel uncool when he goes to 7-11, so he's got a vendetta and
wants all the young dudes put in jail until he stops feeling so threatened
all the time.
---------
There must be a fear factor.
---------
Only if you want kids to fear the law, fear getting
caught, rather than respect it out of a desire to be good citizens.
Teaching fear of the law rather than respect for responsibilities
carries the obvious implication that if you don't need to fear doing
a thing, you can do it. Nobody looking? Steal the comic
book. Teachers not around? Punch the dork. If
you control kids with fear, you raise kids who think that the only
reason not to commit a crime is because they're afraid of jail, rather
than because stealing or drinking or punching are wrong and irresponsible.
Sure, there should be fear when there's absolutely nothing else.
But to turn this around on Bill, see below -- the
guy is *terrified* of kids. He hates them, yeah, but this
obvious need to control them through fear, i mean, jesus -- what
the hell happened to this guy when he was twelve? Was he beaten,
and now justifies his parents' behavior by believing that they were
justified because kids are horrible and need controlling? Or
was he just tormented by other kids? If it was the second thing,
all I would say is WAAAAHWAAAAAH!!! Poor widdle Billy got teased!!!
WAAAH!!! That, and you probably deserved it, if you were
the self-righteous prick that you are now.
It's also funny because Fear Factor is a reality TV
show where people eat bugs. I swear, is there a cliched catch-phrase
that this guy won't use?
Re: puppetry of the penis, a smash broadway hit:
---------
It is called "The Puppetry of the" --
well, "manhood" is a good word.
---------
This is great. That Bill would choose 'manhood'
is right in line with our prior discussion about the fact that
'gay' is 'fucking in public' and 'female' is 'vagina'. He's
*is* his penis. It is his manhood, his identity. That
gender might exist outside of one's physical characteristics is beyond
him.
---------
Why anyone would want to see this is beyond
me.
---------
Another example of Bill's failure to be able to imagine
a thing, and concluding that it must not be true. The show's
been running for over a year, it's on world tour, and they're on
Jay Leno later this week. I guess Bill's just not imaginative
enough.
---------
My advice to the guys doing this: Keep
your down under, down under, if you know what I mean.
---------
And their response, I would assume, would be, "Fuck
you, we're getting rich doing this. If you don't want to
go, don't. Anyway, the entire run's sold out, you prude! We're
going to go count our huge stacks of money now, fuck-o, but thanks
for the moronic advice!"
If you know what I mean.
8 October 2002
Not much today -- I'm writing a lot of perl and
feeling pretty good about the world. Bill thinks we should
invade Iraq. Here's a couple of logical and factual fallacies
which he has constructed to help his case.
---------
The man trains and funds Palestinian
suicide bombers, has used poison gas on civilians, and is generally
a murderous psychopath.
---------
The assertion that Hussein is a psychopath is
a psychological judgment of the sort that a journalist is unqualified
to make. As for 'murderous', the only Americans he's killed
were the ones invading his country. Now, maybe we had a
right to do that, but killing in war is not murder, by any reasonable
understanding of the ethics of war. So he's not murderous,
and while he may be a psychopath, Bill doesn't know one way or another.
As for gassing civilians, this can't be used
to illustrate a moral imperative without implicitly indicting
Reagan, Rumsfeld, and everyone else who turned their heads while
he did it. Since I don't see such an indictment, I'm going
to assume that the claims that this invokes a moral imperative are
grounded not in morality but in political expediency.
And as for funding suicide bombers, well, that's
true inasmuch as he pays their families, but not actually true
in itself.
---------
America has a moral right to remove
Saddam because he has violated the Gulf War Treaty that 299 Americans
died forging.
---------
Nope -- we have a legal right. Asserting
that the treaty is a moral instrument is just silly. All
treaties are legal documents. One might assert that following
the law is moral, but then they'd walk into the trap of being forced
to admit that we've got a legal agreement with the UN not to shoot
first and ask questions later, which would make our invasion at this
time an immoral act.
---------
I've listened to those that oppose
removing Saddam and feel they are being naive and failing to
see that worldwide terrorism must be confronted on a case-by-case
basis, and Saddam is a very hard case.
---------
This is just nonsensical -- Bill admits that
terrorism should be addressed on a case-by-case, he admits that
Saddam is a tough one, but then links this to the notion that people
opposing it don't see this and are hence naive. In fact, here
we've got a false mutual exclusion -- it's actually quite possible
to know that terrorism is tough, that Saddam is also a tough question,
to think in a non-naive way, and to still oppose removing him. This
is bad thinking on its face.
---------
Civilians are now targets, and dictators
like Saddam cannot be allowed to foster terrorism with or without
weapons of mass destruction.
---------
Ugh. Of course, Bill goes on to invalidate
this statement by asserting that full inspections will solve
the problem (i thought that he was no good 'with or without WMD...).
The important thing here, though, is the inclusion of 'Civilians
are targets' -- this is entirely irrelevant to anything else in
the statement, or the rest of the article. It appears that
Bill has just thrown it in for rhetorical effect. Also note the
subtle difference between, 'Civilians are now targets' and, say, 'Civilian
lives are now fair game' The difference is that sentence one only
describes attacks on us in which civilians are hurt, whereas sentence
two describes attacks on, say, Iraq in which civilians are hurt. Bill
loaded his language with the logically untenable and frankly dated
notion that a dead civilian by accident isn't as dead as a dead civilian
on purpose.
A final point worth noting is that, in fact,
Saddam has never targeted American civilians. The 299
dead were soldiers. If we're preempting in self-defense
on the basis of the fact that he's targeting our civilians, we're
acting on something which is simply not true -- even targeting the
first GWBush doesn't count, since he's commander-in-chief. As
far as the gassing goes, see above -- it didn't bother us before, so
using this as a moral objection calls into question our previous morality.
Bla bla bla, as usual.
7 October 2002
I skipped 4 October because I was having dinner
with friends, and had lots to do. I'll leave beating up
on Bill as an exercise for the reader.
Now, in today's TP, Bill tries to show how impartial
he is by giving us a look at his principled stand against a letter-writer
who thought he should have called Rosie O'Donnell's lifestyle 'sinful'.
This is not swaggering or bragging, mind you, he just felt
it was important to mention one of the myriad ways in which News From
Da Bill is the Only True News, because Bill is the only True News-Paper
Man. But whether Bill likes talking about how great he is isn't
at issue here; he does. So let's get into it:
---------
I've made it quite clear here on The
Factor and in my books that gays who attempt to force
their lifestyles on the rest of us are way out of line. All public
displays of sexuality are offensive, and Americans have the right
to demand that children be protected from any sexual agenda,
---------
First of all, all public displays of sexuality
are offensive only if you're a maniacal prude or a repressed
religious maniac. For example, both the hit broadway show
Chicago and the Rolling Stones album
Some Girls
are, by any measure and whatever else they are, public displays
of sexuality. And while you can have a problem with Mick's not
having that much jam and its racist implications, no one who has given
this any thought really feels that there's no place for the expression
of the fact that we
have sexualities in public. This
isn't a secret. We all know it, although, as I mentioned, some would
deny this fact. Nevertheless, Bill would have us believe that,
if it implies you're not a eunuch, and you do it in public, you're
offensive. Oh. OK.
That's just sad. But what he's really
saying isn't remarkable for its sad-full-ness. In fact,
sentence one refers to a lifestyle, sentence two to a sexuality,
and, while Bill is typically broad about it, we all think that some
acts ought to be kept indoors. But put as Bill puts it, there
is no difference between 'public displays of sexuality' and 'their
lifestyles' -- there's nothing more to being gay than having
sex with people of the same sex, and the 'lifestyle' of a gay person
is 'the physical act of sex', nothing more (although 'sex' here would
seem to be mostly kissing or holding hands, since there's so little
actual public sex in the world these days). This is clear --
sentence one: i hate when gays force their lifestyle
on us --
sentence two: in fact, when
anyone has
sex in public, it's awful, a fact which is only relevant to
sentence one if the gay lifestyle is gay intimacy in public.
Here, i expect no argument from Bill. He
believes that the gay
is nothing more than gay sex,
just as "african-american" means nothing more than "brown skin"
and "woman" means "vagina". There are no cultural components
to these distinctions in Bill's world. Bill is color-blind
and sex-blind -- right up until some black person starts having interests
that stem from their race, or women asserting that there might be
distinctions in what it is to be of a particular gender. Then,
it's STFU time, you self-obsessed left-wing maniac. I've never
been there, either, white straight man that I am, but I know that these
people are pissed off about
something , and they make a
reasonable case.
But Bill shouts them down.
---------
I also made it quite clear that
it is better for all American kids to have both a mother and
a father and that gay adoption should be closely monitored and
used only when there is not a heterosexual alternative.
---------
This is great. No numbers, no anything.
Bill heard it somewhere, even though gay couples tend
to be better-educated and wealthier than non-gay couples, and
that education of parents and family wealth are, by far the two
best indicators of the success of the children. He made it
clear it was better, though, so there you have it. Because
homosexual adoption should be used only when there is no heterosexual
alternative, we can infer that Bill believes that
any heterosexual
parents are better than
any homosexual parents, regardless
of wealth, education, location, or any other possibly important
factors. It's a good thing that Bill's here to point out how
cut and dried all these complicated issues are.
So that's it. See how impartial Bill is,
cutting down his religious letter-writer? Not that he likes
gays, not at all -- the best gay parent is less fit than the least
fit straight parent, and, of course, the notion that he should ever
be reminded that gays exist turns his stomach, probably, as his
rhetoric would indicate, because as soon as he hears "gay!", he instinctively
imagines two men making out on a blanket under a tree, big, gay moustaches
blowing in the summer breeze. But he's very open-minded, completely
impartial -- don't you see?
3 October 2002
Today's is great -- any older person talking
about how kids today are running riot is funny; when an insane
demagogue does it, it's even funnier. Remove the need
for one's argument to follow any known rules of logical deduction,
and you've got Wild Bill's TP for today:
---------
If certain Americans continue to hate
the police and scream racism at tough law enforcement, then those
citizens deserve the chaos they are getting.
---------
I see -- so if black people want violence
to go away, they have to surrender their right to be upset
when the police commit biased acts. In fact, it seems that
the poor are responsible for the conditions of their neighborhoods,
because they demand recourse to the law when someone gets shot 41
times for going for their wallet! If only they'd known, maybe
they wouldn't have been so uppity this whole time, right, Bill?
So, Bill has decided that the residents
of poor black neighborhoods must choose between safety and
justice. This is interesting, but, of course, a terrible
fallacy. In fact, if a police department can't both protect
the citizenry
and not behave like a bunch of power-drunk
pussies shooting anything that moves if it's a bit too brown for
their comfort, that's a failure of the cops. Demanding these
two minimal standards of behavior from your cops is really not demanding
all that much at all.
---------
Society cannot force people to
be good parents, but it can punish those who neglect or abuse
their kids. And allowing a 10-year-old to wander the streets
late at night is neglect, make no mistake about it.
---------
Sigh. Because Bill loves big government
so much, he now wants it disciplining parents for not disciplining
their kids, all because it upsets him to be reminded that there
are shitty neighborhoods. This, by the way, is typical of
people from Long Island. Their insane bipolar worship/hatred
of New York, it's one of the main reasons that New York has so many
of the problems that it does. But whatever, because now Big Government
Bill is advocating enforcing standards of behavior on parents. Perhaps
they should also call operation TIPS if their kids are displaying
radically fundamentalist Christian tendencies, and go to jail if they
shoot an abortion doctor. What of it, Billy?!?
---------
We have public schools that is refuse
to hold kids accountable for their behavior,
---------
This is just stupid. If kids are badly
behaved at school, sure, it might be because the school likes
it when its pupils don't learn and make a mess of things, because
teachers and administrators enjoy their schools being out of control
and turning out bad product. I mean, you'd have to forcibly
prevent yourself from thinking about this assertion to believe
it, but I have no trouble accepting that Bill and his fans posses this
capacity in abundance. Doing so also saves you from the trouble
of considering whether paying for better quality teachers, which
would cost money, might help, because teachers apparently enjoy failure
and frustration.
It's also funny, because Bill just got done
telling us how the problem is that parents ought to be responsible
for their kids, for four paragraphs. But, wait, it's
the school, see. Can't....think......Bill....clouding
mind....modus ponens.....modus tollens.....must....watch....Celebrity....Boxing....<thump>
He also goes on for a while about how if
that was a black guy killed by 8 white kids, bla bla bla, as
though white people haven't gotten upset about this killing.
But they must not have, you see, because it would water down
Bill's point, and make the response of The Blacks seem reasonable.
And it must also not be the case that there's a long history of
white people beating up black people in America, rather than vice versa,
because that also might explain why The Blacks get so upset when things
like this happen. I think that Bill probably smiles a little inside
when Black people riot because a kid got shot by cops. It makes
his whole world make sense.
Finally, this ridiculous story:
---------
The Center recommends that parents use
a calm voice when giving the kids their point of view. Very
NPR.
Ridiculous? Not in Copenhagen.
---------
And that's it. The story ends. No
facts, no figures, just "Oh, YEAH? We'll *you're* the
DUMMY!!!!"
Intern to comb through internet: $7/hr
New Sharpie for Signing Photos of self:
$2.99
Not needing therapy over your childhood,
even though you have no kids but seem to think they should all
be hit a lot more: -$145/week
Not needing to elaborate on an epithet or
use evidence to rebut a proposition, because you're the Bill
and it's stupid if you say it is: priceless
2 October 2002
Let's start with something I think is
funny.
---------
That, of course, is unacceptable
to we, the people.
---------
Bad grammar be unacceptable to I, an person.
I get the joke, Bill -- see, 'cause that's a famous
phrase! And 'cause your audience can't read. But
of course, when everything that comes out of your mouth has to
be fit for The Big Book of Political Snaps and One-Liners, sometimes
ATTITUDE is more important than grammar. Hulk crush puny
pin head grammar!!!!! TO THE EXTREEEEEEME!!!! Just do
it, America.
Sigh. To sum up, is this commentary,
or scripting a Pepsi commercial?
---------
Should I send the citation to George Clooney,
or would that be ridiculous?
---------
Ladies and gentlemen, our big tough braniac
political commentator has a beef with actor-heartthrob George
Clooney. He's going to spite George Clooney. He's
going to stick it to GEORGE CLOONEY. Not a fellow journalist.
Not a politician who has badmouthed him. George Clooney.
Not a doctor, plays one on TV. Is it even worth my time
to update this page, or is it clear to America that O'Reilly is a six-year-old
retard in the body of a 45-year-old retard? Man.
The best part is that Clooney called him
a liar, and Bill responded with, "There aren't even sweeps
on cable, stupid!" This reminds me of a joke i just made
up:
Q. You stole my pony, liar! I saw
you put it in your Ford Explorer!
A. It's not even raining, you idiot!
Of course, this shouldn't come as a surprise
-- Bill was, after all, voted Most Likely to Stick It to a
Roguishly Handsome Fake Doctor by all the other anchors at
Inside Edition.
1 October 2002:
Bill asserts that these two statements
by rep dan burton represent a change of heart:
---------
1. O'REILLY: We wanted to show the
American people that even given the chance to come to America, given
that they're not going to take it because they are brainwashed.
REP. DAN BURTON (R), INDIANA: Well,
now, I think that may be true and it may not be.
2. BURTON: Many of them
over a period of time are either so terrified or so brainwashed that they
don't know what to do.
---------
In fact, the statement 'may or may not'
would seem very much in accordance with a statement like 'terrified
or.. brainwashed'. Consider the following: I believe
that all newsmen are either morons or liars. Now consider
the following two statements:
1. MORONICUS: Don't you think that those
newsmen are liars?
REP. HENRY QUINN: Well, now, I think
that may be true and it may not be.
2. QUINN: Many newsmen are either liars
or morons.
So whoop-de-doo -- strip away the individual's
right to have a complicated opinion, and they're pretty
easy to knock down. This is Bill's world, and you're
just living in it. It's his party, and if he's not going
to have any complicated thoughts, you damn well better not, either.
I'll call this the 'Bill O'Reilly's Limited
Imagination' rule, which says that if Bill can't get his
head around it, it can't be true. You might make a note,
this is a recurring theme.
Next up, Bill's hard-hitting expose on
an issue close to the hearts of all, ah, wait, what?
---------
Now we don't want to be mean,
but things are getting a little tense over at our competitor, MSNBC.
TV Guide has an article this week saying that
there are big ratings problems over there.
---------
Pardon me, but what the fuck? This
isn't actually stupid, just surprising -- when as many people
attack your integrity as must be the case for the Bill, shouldn't
you avoid QUOTING TV GUIDE for the purpose of -- wait for it --
GLOATING? Competing stations'
ratings are news?
Oh, fuck. But wait, it gets better:
---------
And, according to U.S. News
& World Report , Chris Matthews said this about
Phil Donahue. Ready. "He focuses too much on
what's wrong with America. If Donahue stays on the air,
he could bring down the network." .......You know, if Colmes
[Hannity & Colmes co-anchor, Alan Colmes]ever said
that about me...
---------
What, Bill? What would you do?
Is it me, or did Bill O'Reilly just call Phil Donahue
a pussy? Man, this guy's great.
30 September 2002
We'll start tonight's beating with a
statistical inaccuracy:
---------
Two-thirds of the American people want
Saddam out quickly.
---------
See, this is funny. If you lump
together all of the 'get saddam' responses on current polls,
about 2/3 support an attack. But that counts the 50 % who
only want him removed as part of a UN-endorsed action. Since
that hardly counts as a hard-line stance, and since 'quickly',
best i can tell, does not mean 'before inspections which won't even
start until the third week in october and in failure', an accurate
description of current poll results might have read like this:
One-sixth of the American people want
Saddam out quickly.
So i guess his statement was actually
80 % accurate -- 100 % if you don't count the extremist words
at the far left of the sentence.
---------
According to a United Nations survey,
Afghan farmers will increase opium production more than
1,000 percent under the Karzai government.
---------
I don't take issue with this, I just
thought I'd start a list of times that Bill relies on information
whose sources he says he doesn't trust. One.