Earlier this evening, surfing through the cable channels and landed on O'Reilly. Always a fan of train wrecks, I watched for a few minutes, until my gorge rose and stomach heaved.
The nice lady Jane from Fox Newswatch was there along with my good pal Bernard (Bernie) Goldberg. His backup group, the Variations, were off for the evening apparently.
They were talking about the big rasslin' match between Michael J. Fox and Rushbo. You know, the one about how Fox made a commercial for Missouri Senate candidate MacCaskill about stem cell research. And then Rush made fun of Michael J. because he was faking having Parkinson's or something.
While I was watching O'Reilly, Goldberg made the same complaint that Limbaugh made about Fox and that Ann Coulter made about the Jersey Girls, those survivors of people killed at the World Trade Center on 9/11. Maybe you've heard of it.
Here is why Golberg, Limbaugh and Coulter are all bothered by the arguments made by Fox and the Jersey Girls and others. They don't like having to argue against victims. That's not fair, they cry. People who have been victimized can't be criticized.
What cowards. They should be told that it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone whether or not the person they disagree with has been the victim of a crime or a disease. Being such a victim does not endow one with infallible judgement.
So Rush, Ann and Bernie, if you don't like what Michael J. Fox or the Jersey Girls are saying, tell us why. Why do you disagree with them? Don't just throw up your hands and say, "Lawdy lawdy, I can'ts disagree wif someone who has been done so wrong. it ain't fair. Boo hoo."
If Michael J. Fox is wrong about stem cell research, can't you just tell us why? IOW, don't be so fucking patronizing.