O'Reilly continues attacks on homeless vets, Edwards

Well, after this latest verbal diarrhea from Bill O'Reilly, with which Keith Olbermann and IAVA's Paul Rieckhoff blasted him for his assholery, what's O'Reilly to do?

Why, ramp up the attacks on homeless vets and John Edwards, that's what!  The sordid details after the fold.

First, the Department of Veterans Affairs webpage confirms those statistics.

About one-third of the adult homeless population have served their country in the Armed Services. Current population estimates suggest that about 195,000 veterans (male and female) are homeless on any given night and perhaps twice as many experience homelessness at some point during the course of a year. Many other veterans are considered near homeless or at risk because of their poverty, lack of support from family and friends, and dismal living conditions in cheap hotels or in overcrowded or substandard housing.

For more statistics on homeless veterans, see here.

In the next salvo in O'Reilly's War Against Homeless Veterans^TM, Robert Greenwald's Brave New Films went and found some homeless vets to hear their side of the story.

So after that awesome smackdown, what's an asshole like O'Reilly to do?  Why, escalated his attacks on homeless vets, and also against John Edwards, for daring to mention them!  O'Reilly actually now admits there are 200,000, when National Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse President Joseph Califano went on his show to tell him to his face there are indeed that number of homeless vets.  O'Reilly suddenly agreed with the number, and yet you can see him blow several gaskets when Califano said a lot of people are in denial about homelessness and agreed with what Edwards was saying about the homeless situation.  See, Edwards is simply "dumb", according to BillO.  Newshounds provides us the original clip, if you can stomach it.  Warning: This clip provides several uninterrupted minutes of Bill O'Reilly's sheer assholery at its peak.  Do not watch right before or after eating food.

See, according to O'Reilly, vets are homeless basically because they're drug abusers and mentally ill, and NOT because of their economic situation.  Can this guy be more dangerously out of touch with reality?  So after ranting about the correct number, we're supposed to believe O'Reilly knows jack shit about why those veterans are homeless?  Notice that in the span of just a few minutes, he couldn't keep his story straight on the government's role in dealing with homeless vets.

Naturally, all this earned O'Reilly Worst Person in the World honors from Keith Olbermann yet again.

After all this, our own Brandon Friedman says Bill O'Reilly simply needs to go.  You can help out by signing IAVA's petition asking O'Reilly to set the record straight.  And hopefully he won't send Fox Security to your door.

And another way you can help fight back is to thank John Edwards for standing up to the Bill O'Reilly's of the world by contributing to his campaign.  Here is what Edwards had to say.

"Tonight, 200,000 brave veterans will be homeless, and they will sleep in shelters, on the streets, under bridges, and on grates – and Bill O'Reilly doesn't think there is a problem. For someone who spends a lot of time shouting about patriotism, you would think he would be outraged by the treatment of our homeless veterans. How many more will it take before we wake up and solve this crisis?

"These are the facts. Today, one out of four of our nation's homeless are veterans, and a recent federal government study found that a third of our homeless live in places 'not meant for human habitation.' This is a serious moral failing of our government and our nation. Our veterans have done everything we have asked of them and more, and it's time we honor our sacred contract with them.

"While George Bush and Bill O'Reilly continue to ignore our homeless veterans, the American people, whether we are Democrats, Republicans, or Independents, must speak out and stand up for those who have stood up for us. We must do everything we can to solve this terrible problem – and we must begin by reaching out to these men and women who are suffering – not pretending they do not exist. After our veterans have served our country honorably, isn't one homeless veteran one too many?"

•  Tip jar

  I'm actually about to head out to cheer on the Bruins against USC in basketball, so I won't be able to respond to comments until sometime this afternoon.

  by BruinKid on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:22:29 AM PDT

  •  If not John Edwards, who do we have?

    I wrote about it last night here:
    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    My dad is a vet, though he's not homeless, thank God. But addressing the homeless vet problem isn't the only good reason I'm supporting JRE.

    Thanks for this.

    by Straightforward on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:47:33 AM PDT

  •  Eight clap! $C version

    U! clap!  clap!  clap!
    C! clap!  clap!  clap!
    L! clap!  clap!  clap!
    A! clap!  clap!  clap!
    UCLA, Beat $C!
    

    by Neon Vincent on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:29:18 PM PDT

•  I was at the Edwards rally in MO today.

  Edwards continues to speak out on homeless vets.  He is making it an issue by making it an issue.  A real advocate president.

  by jsamuel on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:34:06 AM PDT

•  NYtimes article today on homeless vets

  link

  confirms that the problems are often PTSD.  They point out, why is this such a problem, when we learned lessons from Viet Nam?  That is a fair question.

  by murrayewv on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:37:29 AM PDT

  •  If a Rethug Doctor got ripped for

    offering a medical opinion based on a TV viewing, what shall we say of a reporter offering a diagnosis of PTSD, unless he's/she's quoting medical records, which are supposed to be confidential, unleased released by the patient? Senator Frist, so soon forgotten ....

    by jfdunphy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:56:54 AM PDT

    •  Um...

      Iraq veterans are less likely to have substance abuse problems but more likely to suffer mental illness, particularly post-traumatic stress, according to the Veterans Administration. And that stress by itself can trigger substance abuse.

      From the above article.

      by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:17:11 AM PDT

      •  Can someone get a prescription based on

        a generalized statment by the VA?

        by jfdunphy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:22:25 AM PDT

        •  Uhhh.....

          PTSD is a big problem and a common source of mental illness after combat.  The VA keeps statistics on their client population, including homeless clients.  Drug use is a major reason people wind up homeless and mental illness is another.  Poverty is generally a transient homelessness problem.  Not sure what your point is here jfdunphy.  Do you not believe people have PTSD after service in Iraq or Afghanistan.  I just chatted with a student about his experiences briefly, while recommending he consider meeting with the Vet Center locally.  He is not homeless or mentally ill, but he saw and experienced some pretty horrific things.  Its not that big a secret that people are being blown up and shot there.

          by murrayewv on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 01:42:49 PM PDT

          •  Instead of making broad generalizations

            let's review a few facts from the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorder:
              In the US, some 5.2 million people experience clinical PTSD, or about 8 percent of people who have witnessed traumatic events. Of those, women are twice as likely as men to experience PTSD.
               Among combat veterans who have experienced traumatic events in their tours, the incidence of clinical PTSD is as follows:
               * Vietnam: 30 percent
               * Afghanistan: 6-12 percent
               * Iraq (Operation Iraqi Freedom, i.e., W.'s "war"): 12-20 percent.
               But as you dig further into the clinical description of PTSD, you find that sexual harassment is also a leading cause of PTSD, with rates of PTSD for both men and women exceeding that of those who experience PTSD in combat related environments. In fact, those who were abused as children, and/or experienced sexual harassment, are more prone to suffer clinical PTSD. Which brings us to the problems of sexual harassment in the military, such as the infamous cases at the Air Force Academy in Colorado Springs.
              My point is that the reporting is NOT a medical opinion, and quoting the VA isn't either. There are plenty of medical sources to compare and contrast the information in the NYT article against, and my inclination, having been trained in the scientific method in school, is to look at the evidence---not what dubious sources (Remember Jason Williams and Judith Miller) assert is the case. Sexual harassment is a bigger percentage cause of PTSD, according to those conducting studies on the problem and how to treat it. It would be most convenient for corporations (read sponsors of TV ads) to convince the general public that PTSD's main cause is related to combat; as this belief in the pool of potential jurors helps predispose jurors not to give as large awards in sexual harassment cases.
              Citing one student is both anecdotal evidence, as well as hearsay in court.

            by jfdunphy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 04:46:08 PM PDT

            •  And while we're at it, let's examine what

              the figure of 195,000 homeless veterans might really mean.
               The National Coalition for the Homeless estimates that in any given year, some 400,000 veterans are homeless, and on any given night there's about 200,000, so this is a dynamic, changing, population. 195,000 comes to about 2.5 percent less than the average night.
               But let's go with the 195,000 number. Since about 47 percent of the homeless are from the Vietnam era, or 91,650. And, as above, some smaller percentage saw actual combat, and since we know that the supply tail is about 8 support troops to one combat troop, that works out to about 12.5 percent of 47 percent, or about 11,456. If 30 percent experienced PTSD, that leaves 3,437 Vietnam vets with PTSD homeless on a given night.
                Going down the line, 17 percent of the homeless were post-Vietnam, or 33,150. If 1 in 8 were combat veterans, that gives about 4,144 subject to combat stress. Even if all of them exhibited the highest level of PTSD rates, which is 20 percent, that produces about 829 subject to PTSD.
               Adding it up: Vietnam era  3,437
                        post-Vietnam era    829
                                          ____
                                           4,266

              Naturally, this does not accurately reflect the true size of the PTSD and homeless problem, as many decline or refuse to seek treatment. The 200,000 number of homeless is estimated to be well short of the size of the problem.      

              by jfdunphy on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 05:28:55 PM PDT

            •  my husband is a head of the Vet center here....

              and I am well aware of clinical issues with readjustment counseling and the need for privacy for clients.  It was to my husband that I sent the student, while assuring the student, honestly, that my husband does not share client issues with me.  

              If all you want is better statistics and the scientific method, then I can surely address your complaints with data- but around here we have been discussing PTSD with data for so long that it is generally accepted.  

              The comments you made were fairly generic and sceptical about the size of the problem and frankly, sounded a bit trollish.  However, I am well aware of how difficult written communication is on blogs like these and how easily people can read more into what you say than you meant.    

              I teach in a science discipline in a university and am well aware of what constitutes critical thinking and data as support for a position.  But at some point, is it anectodal evidence or is it just qualitative research based on interview data from clinicians?  

              In my understanding of causes of PTSD, a single horrific experience can cause flashbacks and constant hypervigilence.  My student's experiences, which I did not share with you as it is just an anecdote, were sufficiently horrific that I could see he was at risk.  My husband's experience with the returning vets is that getting help earlier is better.  My student didn't even know my town has a vet center, since he is technically still in the military and has been getting some counseling from them.  He was wounded and can no longer serve physically. He served two tours and was glad to have a conversation about his experiences and happy to learn that a combat vet with a degree in social work was available to help him with his readjustment issues.  My comment addressed the problem that we still have homeless vets, even knowing what we do about the problems of Viet Nam.

              We have homeless vets in my town, and they are quite mentally ill.  I read the papers and hear things in the news.  From generally speaking with my husband and reading about compat stress, I know not all mental illness due to combat is PTSD- other stresses can precipitate a genetic tendency to have a mental illness.  Playing "back of the envelope" statistical number estimate like you do below may seem useful, but it doesn't really capture the extent of the problem with anymore accuracy than my statement that there are mentally ill vets living on the street in my town.  The VA estimates that there are 1500 homeless vets from the current conflicts link.

              It is very hard to help people who are that seriously mentally ill.  In our town, we recently learned the VA hospital will geet 12 inpatient beds and a psychiatry residency program as part of the additional VA funds legislated by Democrats in the Congress.  That could make a bigger impact for the homeless.

              by murrayewv on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 09:43:14 AM PDT

              •  How can one purport to be a scientist,

                and call skepticism and a demand for empirical evidence trollish? You responded to analytical references to data with anecdotes, the opposite of the  scientific method. Just because you discussed the matter before does not constitute evidence. You could just as easily have referred back to a pertinent link, if you thought that would answer the question. If you are the expert witness you purport to be, you could have easily made your case in a civil manner. Instead,  you have begged the question. Ball's in your court, Erasmus.

                by jfdunphy on Sun Jan 20, 2008 at 06:40:58 PM PDT

•  What're Statistics When You Can Simply...

  ...refer to what you're angry bluster tells you must be true?

  Personally, for example, I've never heard of the VA, so therefore, there must not even be such a thing.

  See how easy it is?

  by dyrrachium on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:38:52 AM PDT

  •  If your angry bluster does not decrease after

    4 hours, you should contact your doctor immediately.

    by steve davis on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:51:00 AM PDT

    •  ViAngera?? n/t

      by MaskedKat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:00:46 AM PDT

      •  Take two KennyG albums...

        ...and call me in the morning.

        by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:14:55 AM PDT

        •  You trying to kill me, grannyhelen?

          I love the SNL comment a few years back....

          "In entertainment news, Kenny G has released a Chirstmas album. (Pause) Happy Birthday, Jesus. Hope you like crap!"

          by MaskedKat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:20:34 AM PDT

          •  A tip for

            making me laugh all over again with that hilarious line! I think I was doubled over in tears the first time I heard it.

            by Leap Year on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 02:10:48 PM PDT

        •  too funny granny :-)

          by NetRootsDaily on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 12:36:17 PM PDT

•  You can also sign a petition demanding that

  O'Reilly apologize to our veterans at:

  http://foxattacks.com/...

  Many people are demanding that Fox remove O'Reilly from their programming in their comments!

  by Fallon on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:47:22 AM PDT

  •  fyi

    that web page shows as this:

    The page you were looking for doesn't exist.

    You may have mistyped the address or the page may have moved.

    by Jeffersonian Democrat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:53:45 AM PDT

    •  Sorry about that. Here's the correct link.

      http://foxattacks.com/...

      by Fallon on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:59:20 AM PDT

  •  I signed it this morning

    O'Reilly is way beyond disgusting at this point. He makes me want to fucking puke. The arrogance, the ignorance, the complete and utter lack of regard for either the truth or human decency!

    I worked at a VA hospital for several years, part of that in the inpatient PTSD unit. We also had a homeless vet domicillary - with a huge waiting list. And this was rural Alabama, not a large city. Homeless vets are a HUGE problem, and O'Reilly is a great example of why so little is being done about it.

    Asshole!

    by MaskedKat on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 10:59:29 AM PDT

  •  I'm so there...

    ...why are we letting a troubled man who probably has some serious mental issues have a million dollar microphone?

    by grannyhelen on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:07:32 AM PDT

•  O'Reilly's argument, his direct response

  to Edwards after O'Reilly was shown the correct numbers, is really . . .

  Let's just say I'm not used to seeing even O'Reilly give an argument that obviously specious.

  Here was O'Reilly's argument.

  (1) Edwards says there are 200,000 homeless vets and he's right.

  (2) If a person in America makes $10,000/yr they are poor, according to the US govt.  If a family of four makes $21,000/yr the  family is poor.

  (3) But people and families who meet those criteria have color TVs refrigerators, cars and air conditioning.

  (C-1) Therefore, being poor is not why people are homeless.

  (C-2) Therefore, the homeless vets are adicts and mentally ill.  (Something the gov't can do little about, as O'Reilly said previously.)

  (C-3) Therefore, it is wrong for Edwards to claim that vet homelessness is party of a class war.

  (C-4) Therefore, Edwards is a charlatan.

  O'Reilly claims that (1), (2), and (3) logically get to (C-1).  His logic seems to be this:

  (1a) People who make $10,000/yr are poor.

  (2a) Homeless people are poor.

  (C-1a) Therefore, homeless people make $10,000 yr.

  Yes, I know that looks incomprehensibly stupid.  But I can't figure out what else O'Reilly might mean, by (1) to (C-1).

  Given (C-1), O'Reilly goes to (C-2).  This would seem to work.  That is, if we grant the first part, the move to (C-2) would seem to work.  It seems to show that the economy is not the reason homeless people are homeless, but rather it must be some other reason, for example mental illness or addiction, and gov't can't do much about that.  

  And that seems fine -- provided we also grant to O'Reilly that mentally ill people can't have jobs or get disability.  If we decline to grant that mentally ill people can't have jobs or get disability, and we should, because they can and do get both, then the move from (C-1) to (C-2) seems, again, icoherent.  An insane mistake.  

  From there, O'Reilly goes from (C-2) to (C-3).  If we grant (C-2) -- I stress if we grant it, and we shouldn't, then (C-3) would seem to follow -- provided we agree with O'Reilly that the ways governments deal with the mentally ill and addicted homeless is not part of a class war.  But there's no reason for Edwards to grant that.

  The move from (C-3) to (C-4), provided we grant (C-3), and we shouldn't, works fine, provided that fighting the non-existent "class war" (given (1) to (C-3)) is the only reason to call attention to homeless vets.  But it isn't.  One might, for example, just care about homeless vets.

  So, in other words, every single step, taken individually, is crazy.  Taken together, including and maybe most of all the idea that (1)-(3) add up to (C-1), they result in the most inexplicably stupid argument I've heard in months, and I'm not kidding.

  O'Reilly must be desperate.  He must know he's in real trouble on this one.

  Half of O'Reilly's schtick, the reason he maintains his popularity, is never admitting he's wrong.  To do that, he often has to make specious argument.  But I'm not sure I've ever seen him sweat that hard to do it.  I hope his fans can see through it.

  by LithiumCola on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:34:13 AM PDT

  •  I'm confused as hell, after reading that three

    times, but since the summation is that this is the "most inexplicably stupid argument I've heard in months, and I'm not kidding", I'm going to agree whole heartedly.  Because it was really fucking stupid when I heard it.

    ;-)

    by funluvn1 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:58:07 AM PDT

    •  Oh, I just get a kick out of

      breaking down the logic of really bad arguments.  I teach basic logic to college freshman sometimes, and this kind of thing is fun for me.

      by LithiumCola on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 12:07:31 PM PDT

•  thanks Bruin Kid

  great analysis!

  by jamess on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:39:00 AM PDT

•  O'Reilly is paid to deliver the opinions

  of his bosses and to adopt those opinions as his own so that those same bosses if and/or when they are asked to take responsibility for the propaganda and drivel being spewed from their network can deflect such criticism by   pointing to the mouthpiece as the culprit.

  This goes for Hannity,Cavuto,Doocy and all the rest.

  The rule is that if you want to keep your job then you will say what we tell you to say.

  Of course,this is true for all the other networks as well as FOX.

  The obvious result of all this is that the public is getting only what the networks want to give them.

  And on top of all that,the public is paying for it each month on their cable and satellite bills!!

  by hecate on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 11:54:18 AM PDT

•  One of the mods from the Ed Schultz board

  has posted the interviews with the homeless vet that called into his show and spoke with John Edwards. http://www.progressivepirates.com/...

  by lenzy1000 on Sat Jan 19, 2008 at 12:14:10 PM PDT