Bill O’Reilly told the world he would “apologize for being an idiot” if the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. Nah, Bill. Being an idiot means never having to say you’re sorry:
All posts tagged Bill O’Reilly
Posted by R. Duane Graham on June 28, 2012
Lou Dobbs and Bill O’Reilly are fascists. No, they are fascist pigs. No, no, no, they are depraved fascist pigs. In short, they are Nazis.
Since I am using the same logic they employed in the following clip, in which they declared Robert Reich a communist, I dare anyone to contradict me:
Posted by R. Duane Graham on April 23, 2012
From the Huffington Post Saturday morning:
From the Huffington Post Saturday night:
On Friday I listened to Limbaugh explain why his “illustrating absurdity by being absurd” dodge was sufficient to cover for his calling a young woman a slut and prostitute and desiring to see her perform sex on Internet-posted videos.
“The left wants to pretend they have no sense of humor,” the GOP spokesman said yesterday. It was all a big joke that chumps like us don’t get:
If anybody doesn’t realize that we are illustrating absurdity here by being absurd and that that is the trademark of this program… But oh! No! “Oh, of everything else you’ve said, that’s the lowest of the low. Demanding sex video? Who do you think you are?” Lighten up.
While Limbaugh has used this dodge for years to get him out of some tight spots, this time some of his advertisers, who have made him wealthy, aren’t finding the humor in his comments. They are abandoning his leaking ship of hate.
But I also listened to Sean Hannity, a Catholic Obama-hater, explain on Friday why Rush’s “illustrating absurdity by being absurd” ruse was simply misunderstood by the Democrats and (guess who?) the Liberal Media. Of course Rush “did not mean it” when he said he wanted to wildly masturbate while watching porn videos of young plaid-clad Catholic college girls.*
Then I found out that Bill O’Reilly had his own, uh, more restrained, plan of attack against law student Sandra Fluke:
Let me get this straight, Ms. Fluke, and I’m asking this with all due respect. You want me to give you my hard-earned money so you can have sex?
The sex angle, which seems to fascinate conservatives, is one that Limbaugh just couldn’t get away from. Here was Limbaugh on Friday:
Obama just called Sandra Fluke to make sure she was all right? Awwww. (kissing sound) That is so compassionate! What a great guy. The president called her to make sure she’s okay. What is she 30 years old? Thirty years old, a student at Georgetown Law, who admits to having so much sex that she can’t afford it anymore.
“So much sex that she can’t afford it anymore.” As if the amount of birth control pills a woman takes is commensurate with the amount of sex she is having. That kind of mentality is what we are dealing with here, whether it be talk radio or Fox “News.” Rachel Maddow destroyed Limbaugh on this point on Friday night.
The president tells Sandra Fluke (chuckling), 30-year-old Sandra Fluke, that her parents should be proud. Okay. Let me ask you a question. I might be surprised at the answer I would get to this question. Your daughter appears before a congressional committee and says she’s having so much sex, she can’t pay for it and wants a new welfare program to pay for it. Would you be proud? I don’t know about you, but I’d be embarrassed. I’d disconnect the phone. I’d go into hiding and hope the media didn’t find me…
By the way, if he had said that about my daughter, hiding might be a good idea.
It’s no different than if somebody that I don’t know knocked on my door and said, “You know what? I’m outta money. I can’t afford birth control pills and I’m supposed to have sex with three guys tonight.”
“Well, why are you coming to me?”
“Well, because you’ve got the money.”
“Well, have you ever thought maybe you shouldn’t? If you can’t afford it, you can’t do it.”
Now, all of that is bad enough, but what is worse is that not a single word of it addresses what it was that Sandra Fluke actually testified to in the hearing arranged by Democrats. Most of her testimony involved third-person accounts of women who couldn’t get access to the healthcare they needed to treat, say, polycystic ovarian syndrome, which is a hormonal disorder. She relayed the account of her friend who has the condition:
For my friend, and 20% of women in her situation, she never got the insurance company to cover her prescription, despite verification of her illness from her doctor. Her claim was denied repeatedly on the assumption that she really wanted the birth control to prevent pregnancy. She’s gay, so clearly polycystic ovarian syndrome was a much more urgent concern than accidental pregnancy. After months of paying over $100 out of pocket, she just couldn’t afford her medication anymore and had to stop taking it. I learned about all of this when I walked out of a test and got a message from her that in the middle of her final exam period she’d been in the emergency room all night in excruciating pain. She wrote, “It was so painful, I woke up thinking I’d been shot.” Without her taking the birth control, a massive cyst the size of a tennis ball had grown on her ovary. She had to have surgery to remove her entire ovary.
Not a word about wanting to have unlimited sex without consequences and have conservatives mystically pay for it. And speaking of that, here are some statistics from the Kinsey Institute relevant to this issue:
* I’m just using Limbaugh’s not-so-clever “illustrating absurdity by being absurd” trick.
Posted by R. Duane Graham on March 3, 2012
Every liberal in America who is mad at President Obama should have watched Bill O’Reilly’s show on Wednesday. Not only was his opening “Talking Points” segment a shallow, misleading, disgusting look at welfare in America, it was a sad example of how Fox “News” is the prime mastermind of the so-called class war that it accuses Democrats of waging.
The segment began with a lie:
As just about everybody knows, America is broke.
The government owes more than 14 trillion dollars. So, spending has to be cut, possibly including some welfare payments to the poor.
In 2002 the poverty rate in America was about 12%. In 2009 it was about 14%, up two points despite—despite—more than $4 trillion in welfare spending over that period.
O’Reilly then shows this graph:
“That’s the redistribution of income,” O’Reilly says, helpfully.
He then says something remarkably strange, even for him:
Welfare spending is 15%—15%—of the entire federal budget. But that is deceiving because Medicare and Social Security account for 33% of all spending. If you take those mandated expenses out of the equation, then welfare payments account for 22% of the total budget and that’s a big number.
Why would O’Reilly exclude Social Security and Medicare from “the equation”? Obviously to make the welfare number look worse, which he thinks makes his class war offensive more devastating.
But the class warfare was just heating up. He then quoted a Republican Rasmussen poll that purported to show that Americans think there are “too many people” on welfare:
And a graphic that raised, of course, the “illegal immigrant” issue:
Noting that most of those “illegals” were children, he then said,
The democratic party in general does not want to cut government assistance programs to the poor or even to illegal aliens. The basic philosophy of President Obama’s party is to redistribute income, as we said, to those who do not have very much regardless of their status.
A fair system would hold those receiving government assistance accountable. That is, if they turn things around in their lives, they would have to pay back a portion of what they received. And they would actively have to look for work, if they don’t, the benefits cease.
President Clinton signed the Welfare Reform Act in 1996, and that slowed the “entitlement industry” down a bit, but over the past few years it has picked up steam again. The feds must—must—impose discipline here and in every other federal spending situation.
No mention of why the “entitlement industry“—notice how he conflated welfare with Social Security and Medicaid?—might have grown or “picked up steam” ”over the past few years.” No mention, that is, of the Bush years and the Great Recession he bequeathed to America as one of his parting gifts, which caused many Americans to scramble for help from their government.
Now, match that horrific and sickeningly graceless O’Reilly segment with what is going on in Florida. The governor, Rick Scott, a multi-million dollar Medicare cheat, signed a law that required welfare recipients—who receive a stunningly low $134 in average monthly benefits—to undergo annual drug tests—which cost $30 each— (we had the same thing proposed in Missouri) in order to collect benefits. (Some claim that Scott benefits from the forced drug testing.)
Scott argued that ,”studies show that people that [sic] are on welfare are higher users of drugs than people not on welfare.” But the preliminary data from the new drug testing contradicts that claim. From Tampa Bay Online:
TALLAHASSEE – Since the state began testing welfare applicants for drugs in July, about 2 percent have tested positive, preliminary data shows.
Two percent. The problem is that, according to the Office of National Drug Control Policy, the number of “illicit drug” users in the entire population of the state of Florida happens to be around 8%. Whoops.
The ACLU, which is threatening a lawsuit, says that the measly “apparent” savings associated with the program— the benefit cuts for those who test positive minus the cost of drug testing—has yet to be determined because administrative costs have not yet been calculated.
Derek Newton, a spokesman for the ACLU in Florida, said this:
This is just punishing people for being poor, which is one of our main points. We’re not testing the population at-large that receives government money; we’re not testing people on scholarships, or state contractors. So why these people? It’s obvious– because they’re poor.
Yes, it is obvious, but only to those who have eyes that are willing to see. But Bill O’Reilly, Governor Scott, Fox “News,” and the entire conservative movement’s leadership are blind to the truth—no, actually they are trying to blind others to the truth.
As a final example: On Tuesday morning I watched Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom,” which follows the incomparably dumb Fox and Friends. “America’s Newsroom” is supposed to be straight news on the Republican News Network. If you believe that, I have a FEMA trailer to sell ya.
In any case, the guest host, Gregg Jarrett, said near the beginning of a segment on Warren Buffett’s recent argument that the super rich weren’t taxed enough that, “I did a little digging and here’s what I came up with…“ In other words, the news host was about to take on Warren Buffett.
What he came up with were a series of graphics, two of which were quite deceptive:
As you can see, Mr. Jarrett tried to make the point that the very wealthy were paying more than their fair share of taxes and, as he told his sycophantic guest, Stephen Moore, “more Americans are paying nothing [his emphasis].” The problem was that his chart didn’t let viewers know that he was only talking about federal income taxes. A very different picture develops when all taxes are included.
As the chart demonstrates, the total tax burden—which includes not just income taxes—but payroll taxes and gas taxes and sales taxes and so on, is only slightly progressive, in terms of the tax burden as a percentage of income.
The truth is that the rich earn most of the income and thus pay a majority of the taxes in America. But it’s simply not the case, as Mr. Jarrett tried to claim, that “more Americans are paying nothing.”
So, yes, we have a class war in America. Conservatives started it just after the New Deal was born, and finally succeeded in taking real ground in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan, and have steadily taken a greater share of the country’s wealth ever since.
And now, after gaining so much ground, after decimating the middle class, they are hungry for more and have declared war on the poor.
Posted by R. Duane Graham on August 25, 2011
I haven’t noticed any criticism of Juan Williams from the right-wing since he indicted NPR as “an all-white operation,” which had “more success with white women” than black or Hispanic journalists.
Hmm. Usually, any African-Amerian who points out the pale-faced composition of an organization and accuses them of color bias is excoriated by conservatives for “playing the race card.” But not the Right’s favorite black “liberal.”
Not that Mr. Williams offered any other evidence for his charges than his messy termination by NPR, after the comments he made on his real home, Fox “News.” That firing, of course, had nothing to do with his pigmentation, but the company he was keeping. And for some of the things he was saying while he was with that company.
If Mr. Williams has other evidence of discrimination, let’s hear it. NPR is not exempt from accountability for any uncivil actions.
But the wisdom of that decision by NPR to fire him seems to be confirmed by Williams himself, who told HuffPo:
What you see is there a real reluctance to, despite 10 years of success…deal with me as a journalist,” Williams said. “For them, I think the fact that I was a journalist who was not being pigeonholed as just a black journalist, but something larger and sometimes even conservative in a point of view, made them have great difficulty with me.”
“Not being pigeonholed as just a black journalist, but something larger and sometimes even conservative in a point of view.” That reference to his employment at Fox is perfect. Because that’s exactly the kind of “liberal” commentator Fox “News” wants on its payroll, black or white. One with a “sometimes” conservative point of view or one who will softly spar with Bill O’Reilly or Sean Hannity, so as not to land any damaging blows.
NPR was right to can him, because obviously now he can say anything he wants on the network that hires only people—pale faced or not—who don’t stray too far from the Fox Nation Reservation.
Posted by R. Duane Graham on March 10, 2011
Bill O’Reilly called MSNBC “anti-American.” Last night, MSNBC’s Lawrence O’Donnell hit back and captured Bill O’Reilly and Fox exactly—and I mean, exactly—right, and it is a pleasure to watch:
Posted by R. Duane Graham on February 15, 2011
The buzz this morning on Morning Joe was over National Public Radio’s firing of Juan Williams.
The consensus was that NPR acted irresponsibly and with great political correctness over Williams’ comments to Bill O’Reilly regarding O’Reilly’s spat with a couple of The View girls over his statement that “Muslims killed us on 9/11.” Billo had asked Williams what he thought about that statement, to which Williams replied,
I mean, look, Bill, I’m not a bigot. You know the kind of books I’ve written about the civil rights movement in this country. But when I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous.
Williams went on to try to explain to the hard-headed O’Reilly that it was dumb to blame all Muslims for the actions of a few extremists and it appeared that Williams, a regular on the Republican “News” Channel, was trying to “reason” with the unreasonable host.
Joe Scarborough, Pat Buchanan, and other Morning Joe regulars were beside themselves over NPR’s reaction, spouting the usual conservative line about political correctness and other nonsense and suggesting that NPR should hire him back. They blamed left-wing bloggers (who, by the way, blog in their “underwear,” according to someone on the show) for starting the wave that ended in Juan Williams’ departure from NPR.
But while I agree that Williams’ comments in this case weren’t in themselves worthy of dismissal, the truth is that any regular listener to NPR, no matter one’s political affiliation, recognizes that NPR is merely protecting its brand of journalism, a brand that has behind it a steadfast commitment to the profession, as opposed to some of the stuff one witnesses on cable news channels day in and day out.
Juan Williams, while still affiliated with NPR, decided to forsake his credibility as a journalist and associate himself with the mostly faux-journalism practiced on the Republican “News” Channel. Good for him. I’m sure he is paid well for his trouble. NPR’s problem was that it didn’t fire Williams when he first made his move away from NPR’s brand. NPR waited too long to cut him off and the exchange yesterday with O’Reilly was just a way to do something it should have done long ago.
Just recently, NPR issued a directive to its employees not to participate in Jon Stewart’s “Rally to Restore Sanity” or Stephen Colbert’s “March to Keep Fear Alive.” Participation in those events, which NPR will cover as a news outlet, would violate NPR’s Ethics Code. Here are just two restrictions from the code:
1. NPR journalists may not run for office, endorse candidates or otherwise engage in politics. Since contributions to candidates are part of the public record, NPR journalists may not contribute to political campaigns, as doing so would call into question a journalist’s impartiality.
2. NPR journalists may not participate in marches and rallies involving causes or issues that NPR covers, nor should they sign petitions or otherwise lend their name to such causes, or contribute money to them.
The point is that journalism is a profession and journalists ought to act professionally. News reporting should be as free from personal prejudice as possible, even if a reporter does have strong feelings about the issue on which he or she is reporting. Prohibiting its employees from associating with the Stewart-Colbert rallies is an important example of NPR protecting its reputation as producing reliable journalism.
On the commentary side, NPR listeners, me included, who have listened to Juan Williams’ contributions to NPR for years, were dismayed by his moonlighting at the Republican “News” Channel, particularly his association with Bill O’Reilly, where he has sometimes filled in for the blowhard.
In fact, in 2009, after Williams said some things about Michelle Obama that were right out of the right-wing nut playbook, NPR asked the Republican “News” Channel to stop identifying Williams as an “NPR news political analyst,” even though many long-time NPR listeners believed, rightly, that he should have been fired for that appearance and those comments.
It’s been a long time coming, but NPR has finally done the right thing by getting rid of Juan Williams, who with every appearance on O’Reilly and other right-wing shows, tainted NPR’s brand name. I know most conservatives believe NPR is a “liberal” news source, but then again those same conservatives think the Republican “News” Channel is “fair and balanced,” so it really doesn’t matter what they think.
What matters is that NPR doesn’t succumb to the tendency these days of abandoning real journalism in favor of what passes for journalism today on cable “news” networks, particularly one that has an unapologetic and symbiotic relationship with the Republican Party.
Posted by R. Duane Graham on October 21, 2010
Howard Fineman reports that Christine O’Donnell, Delaware’s answer to a very strange question, is irked at Republican bigwigs for not sending her more moolah to continue her crusade against reality. Neither the National Republican Senatorial Committee nor the Rove-ish undercover funders want to waste resources financing a campaign that even Don Quixote would abandon.
But the real interesting thing about her pleas for more dough is that we found out that Sean Hannity is her pocket-sized bitch:
Specifically, according to two top GOP insiders, she said at a strategy meeting with DC types last week: “I’ve got Sean Hannity in my back pocket, and I can go on his show and raise money by attacking you guys.”
Finally, Ms. O’Donnell has said something with which we can all agree.
Tea Party candidate for governor of New York, Carl Paladino, said this week,
We must stop pandering to the pornographers and the perverts, who seek to target our children and destroy their lives.
Unfortunately for him, he said this after he had scattered a number of e-mails around that are not suitable for review via a blog connected to a family newspaper. However, WNYMedia can direct you to them, if you want to see examples of how pornographers and perverts and Republican gubernatorial candidates are targeting our children and destroying their lives:
If you are just being introduced to Carl Paladino through various TV or radio stories or the 1,000 published stories on his love for hot, hardcore, barely legal pornography, we’d like to welcome you. You’ve got a lot of catching up to do!
If you’re here to learn more about the salacious and offensive emails he admitted to sending out to his friends, follow this link. Or, this new one with new and improved Carl approved images from sites like FistFlush.com and TeachMyAss.com
If you want to see more coverage from WNYMedia writers about the Paladino campaign, then follow this link. This post is particularly interesting. So is this one.
Someone in Jerry Brown’s campaign for governor referred to his opponent, Meg Whitman, as a “whore.” Then the California president of the National Organization for Women qualified the term a bit by saying that Whitman was a “political whore.” Okay, then. That’s better. Now I understand. But Democrats really should stop calling Republicans names. I mean, after all, Republicans never call the anti-colonialist Kenyan Marxist Muslim racist Barack Hussein Obama names do they?
Kudos to Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar, who walked off The View in protest of The Flatulator, Bill O’Reilly, passing gas on the set. The man has no manners. It’s one thing to let a little poop smoke slip out while you’re at home, but when you’re someone’s guest you really should try to hold it in.
Most people didn’t notice that pretty little Republican Elisabeth Hasselbeck didn’t mind the stink. In fact, she joined in with a butt bomb of her own, something nice girls don’t do on television. Here is Lawrence O’Donnell giving her a little advice on broadcast etiquette:
Posted by R. Duane Graham on October 15, 2010
It’s Official: Republicans Lied
The Frank Luntz-inspired “bailout” mantra, applied to the Democrats’ financial reform proposal by Republicans like Mitch McConnell, can now officially be called a “lie.”
PolitiFact’s Truth-O-Meter has rated as FALSE McConnell’s (and by extension Luntz’s and all Republicans’) comments that “new financial regulations under consideration in the Senate” “will lead to endless taxpayer bailouts of Wall Street banks.“
…we base our ruling primarily on the legislation. It clearly states that the intention is to liquidate failing companies, not bail them out.
Mr. Luntz, no doubt, will generate other ways to sabotage the efforts to reform Wall Street, but let’s hope the Democrats will not bend on this one.
Aloha To Your Campaign Donations
Another example of how in-touch Republicans are with reality, not to mention with “regular folks,” the GOP filed FEC reports indicating that its semi-annual meeting, held in January in Waikiki, cost Republican donors a mere $340,000. According to the National Journal‘s Hotline On Call:
The $340K documented in FEC filings does not include airfare for each staffer, which could amount to tens of thousands more.
I wonder how far 340 grand would go here in Republican Southwest Missouri? Heck, with that kind of money invested in local Republican politics, the party would never have to worry about competition from Democrats. Oh, wait—there’s no competition from the Democrats now around these parts, so Aloha! to all you Republican donors!
Let Me See Your Papers, Comrade!
Arizona Republicans have finally figured out a way to deal with illegal immigration: make racial profiling a state law. According to CNN:
Under the bill, police would be required to question anyone they suspect of being undocumented.
You have to love the way Tea Party Republicans interpret our Constitution, which they claim Obama is trashing.
Sadly, John McCain, who once championed sensible immigration reform, seems to have lost not only his soul, but his sense. Here is an exchange he had with Bill-O:
O’REILLY: Now, next week, the governor is going to sign, we believe, a very stringent state law that gives the police in Arizona very, very broad authority to question people. And a lot of people say it’s going to be racial profiling. You’re going to look for Hispanics, question them, to see if they’re here legally or not. And it’s just not fair. And you say why?
MCCAIN: I say that the federal responsibilities have not been fulfilled. Therefore, the states are acting — the state of Arizona is acting and doing what they feel they need to do in light of the fact that the federal government is not fulfilling its fundamental responsibility to secure our borders. Our borders must be secure.
O’REILLY: But what about the racial profiling? You know that’s going to happen has to happen.
MCCAIN: I hope — I would be very sorry that if some of that happens. And I regret it, but I also regret the — really, it’s not just the murder of Robert Krantz. It’s the people whose homes and property are being violated. It’s the drive-by that — the drivers of cars with illegals in it that are intentionally causing accidents on the freeway. Look, our border is not secured. Our citizens are not safe.
Don’t ask me, I don’t know where you go to get both your integrity and your sanity back.
Go Ahead, Make My Day And Say You’re Gay!
Finally, at a South Carolina Tea Party (where else?), we have a Republican struggling with decorum, but finally giving in to bigotry. From HuffPo:
William Gheen, head of the conservative, anti-”amnesty,” anti-illegal immigration group Americans for Legal Immigration PAC (ALIPAC), spoke at a Greenville, S.C. Tea Party rally this weekend and called for Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to “come out of that log cabin closet.”
Mr. Gheen said he “thought long and hard” about bringing up the rumors about Sen. Graham’s alleged homosexuality, but finally he just couldn’t help but call him on it.
You see, because Lindsey Graham doesn’t want to act like Arizona Republicans on the immigration issue (he favors a more sensible approach, something like the old John McCain’s), he must be motivated by something else. Mr. Gheen said:
Sometimes I wonder what it would take to sell their own country out like that, and there’s one thing it could be that I’m gonna put out in the open here today… Senator Graham, you need to come forward and tell people about your alternative lifestyle and your homosexuality.
When they say this about fellow Republicans, no wonder they don’t blink at calling President Obama a Marxist.
Posted by R. Duane Graham on April 21, 2010
An AP story in the Globe this morning examined an interesting legal question surrounding the upcoming trial of Scott Roeder, the “pro-lifer” charged with the murder of George Tiller in Wichita.
Roeder has confessed to the crime (to the AP, no less), so his guilt is not in doubt, but his apparent defense will be to contend in some way or another that the murder was “necessary” to prevent the killing of unborn “babies.”
Now, even though such a “necessity defense” or “choice of evils defense” will likely fail, I understand why someone like Roeder would raise it. In fact, I’ve written before about the difference between those people in the anti-abortion movement who are “serious” about the rhetoric they use and those who are not.
Many months ago, I criticized our own abortion foe and Globe letter-writer, Rita Crowell, who had submitted a letter to the paper in which she compared President Obama to King Herod, one of the worst figures in Christian history:
A vote for Obama is a vote for dead children and an attack on God Himself. Let us not elect a Herod in this forthcoming election.
I wrote in response:
…the real problem with Ms. Crowell’s position on abortion is that she isn’t serious. I mean really serious. Imagine if, in Springfield, Mo., there were hundreds of elementary schoolchildren being systematically slaughtered every year. Imagine Ms. Crowell knowing where such slaughter was being perpetrated. Imagine her finding out who was doing the killing. And then imagine her merely writing letters to the Joplin Globe about it.
No, what she would do, hopefully along with others who share her convictions about murdering schoolchildren, is go to the slaughterhouse and put a stop to it, even if violence against the perpetrators were necessary.
In the case of Scott Roeder, merely protesting in front of George Tiller’s clinic wasn’t enough for him. He is one anti-abortion true believer who takes his beliefs seriously, who really believes that abortion is tantamount to murder, thus justifying his actions. His beliefs, as abhorrent as they are, are buttressed by almost the entire “pro-life” culture, whose members, like Rita Crowell, routinely say and write things like the following:
The No. 1 issue for the forthcoming Nov. 4 election should be the elimination of abortion. Abortion is a grave sin, an unspeakable crime against God and nature. Elimination of abortion supersedes and overshadows all considerations of the economy, poverty, health care, war and illegal immigration. Abortion is concerned about whether an innocent child lives or dies.
Whether local people like Rita Crowell or national figures like Bill O’Reilly realize it or not, their extreme, Manichean rhetoric makes the world safe for Talibanic extremists like Roeder, who see themselves as God’s instruments to accomplish the “elimination of abortion.”
To be sure, Ms. Crowell, despite her hate-filled missives to the Globe, is not directly responsible for Roeder’s actions. His decision to shoot Dr. Tiller at point-blank range was his and his alone.
But I certainly don’t remember the frequent letter-writer ever submitting a letter condemning the murder of Dr. Tiller, whose gruesome killing really did remind one of the King Herod of old.
The AP story indicates that Roeder’s attorneys probably won’t use the necessity defense, a legal long shot, but instead:
Legal experts and others close to the case have suggested his public defenders may actually be aiming at a conviction on a lesser offense such as voluntary manslaughter — defined in Kansas as “an unreasonable but honest belief that circumstances existed that justified deadly force.”
Part of any “unreasonable but honest belief” would certainly include being persuaded by the incessant extremist rhetoric pervasive throughout the anti-abortion culture, even if most of those who author such rhetoric—hopefully that includes Rita Crowell—don’t take it as seriously as the Scott Roeders of the world.
Posted by R. Duane Graham on December 21, 2009
George Bush the Elder even had me suckered. It turns out that he is as sly as a Fox “News” story, masquerading all this time as a nice guy, when he was at heart a Roger Ailes-inspired pit bull.
Last Friday the ex-CIA director-cum-President of the United States called Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow (“Saint Rachel,” as far as I am concerned) “sick puppies.” But in doing so, he accidentally triggered something that Ms. Maddow explored in an interview with Ron Suskind.
She noted ( in the video posted below) that as Fox “News” has gone deeper and deeper into extremism, people often accuse her of growing more extreme, so that there can be a nice and comfortable narrative about what’s happening on cable television. In other words, it helps people to understand and deem acceptable the quasi-journalism on the Fox “News” Channel, if it can be shown that the same thing is going on across the cable news street. But this analysis, claiming that there is “extremist symmetry” between Fox “News” and MSNBC, is flawed, even if it makes some folks feel better.
As I have tried to point out, MSNBC does bend to the left, but it doesn’t “push” the news like Fox unquestionably does—throughout its broadcast day. And there is no comparison between what Rachel Maddow does and what Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Bill O’Reilly, or other ringmasters do under the Fox “News” circus tent.
One may not like Rachel’s liberalism, or the issues she chooses to highlight each night, but she is very smart (and educated) and painfully fair (for some of us who want her to skewer the “opposition”). She isn’t paranoid like Beck; she doesn’t talk over her guests or monopolize their air time like Hannity; and she doesn’t yell at her guests or otherwise act like the ego-bloated and insufferable O’Reilly.
Now, granted, Keith Olbermann’s MSNBC program is a bit different. His show does comes closer to typical Fox fare, but to insist that he is as much of an extremist as, say, Glenn Beck, is another example of the false symmetry syndrome.
Watching Glenn Beck is a lot like watching what one might imagine a talented but disturbed patient at the old Nevada State Hospital might have done with a couple of cameras, a blackboard, and an eager research staff. Or, if Lyndon LaRouche had daily access to a high-tech TV studio, and a case of VapoRub, one imagines that his show would look a lot like GB’s.
In any case, Olbermann’s show is well within the bounds of civilized commentary, and the idea that Fox “News” Channel is just a mirror image of MSNBC must be challenged, and hopefully that is what is behind the Obama administration’s attempt to expose Fox’s phony claim that it practices authentic journalism.
Here is the segment from the Rachel Maddow show:
Posted by R. Duane Graham on October 20, 2009