When I
started this whole thing, I was DILIGENTLY keeping up with OReilly on a daily basis. As work kicked in and my social life picked up, I've gotten a day behind yet again. I basically started numbering these diaries by the date on the calendar that the OReilly show aired, 'cause Day 1 was August 1. Here I am on the 26th summarizing the show from the night of Wednesday, the 24th. Anyway, if you cared, there's some info.
As far as the show goes, tonight we get a "Talking Points" that paints each of us an extremist. I finally get my explanation of the Pat Robertson controversy. Then, we get six more short segments packed in on various topics. This is the first time OReilly has wavered from his 7 segment outline. Attach whatever meaning to that you want - I dunno.
More on the otherside o' the line:
Talking Points "Are You an Extremist?": The "looney left" is furious that OReilly outed Sheehan as a radical and thus diminished her credibility. Lately she's been referring to foreign terrorists as "Freedom Fighters."
Not to be outdone, the "loopy right" is mad because OReilly said Jesus may not agree with Robertson's comments. Please, allow OReilly to elucidate:
"And extremist rejects facts and holds onto opinion no matter what. Millions (wanted Nixon to stay in office), and millions thought it was okay for Clinton to lie under oath."
Babies do not, according to OReilly, "pop out of the womb demanding to watch The 700 Club or Fahrenheit 9/11." Extremists are not born, the evolve. They have a form of neurosis that rejects anything other than the conclusion they've already arrived at, "no matter the evidence."
Then the show gets crafty and lists out Nine Ways to Decide if YOU Are an Extremist. And look here, I'm gonna list 'em for you as if you were there watching instead of it being ME who had to watch this crap!:
Channelling Jeff Foxworthy here, folks.
You Might Be an Extremist If:
- you think Michael Moore reports accurately.
- you think "Outfoxed" tells the truth about this network.
- you agree with Falwell and Robertson that gays and abortionists caused God to allow 9/11.
- you think Terri Schiavo was aware of her surroundings.
- you think an Open Border is good for the US.
- you think foreign terrorists have Constitutional Rights and Child Sex Offenders should not serve long prison terms.
- you think Allah is okay with killing civilians or admire the Third Reich.
- you think everything Bush has done is good OR everything he's done has been bad.
- you applaud Barbra Streisand's geo-politics or agree when a Right Winger urges nuclear strikes on Iran.
Let's break that down for a second.
The first two items cover a huge swath of the Left in a very general statement. He doesn't say someone has to believe EVERYTHING Michael Moore reports is accurate, he covers every single thing the man utters outloud or types onto a computer screen. Fewer people have seen "Outfoxed," but the same holds true in an "all or nothing" way.
The Robertson/Falwell item is extremely narrow in the range of Wingers it covers. There is certainly a vocal minority who made this claim, but even I, as a gay man, know that a HUGE majority of Republicans don't believe I played a hand in 9/11. Item four is equally narrow, and it does NOT say that "you are an extremist if you believe Schiavo should be kept alive indefinitely." Nope, only if you STILL think she was aware - a quite small crowd now.
Item five, the Open Border, is SUCH a broad statement. I don't know ANYONE who supports throwing the borders open to unsupervised crossings, yet OReilly is suggesting that there are folks out there who want this. And I'll bet he'd label them "Far Left."
Item six is a two-fer, and again is not based on any REAL group that I'm aware of. Yet OReilly is again offering a backhand label for us on the Left. Speaking for myself, I think we should respect the Geneva Conventions when treating foreign prisoners - even "terrorists." I do not want to give them CONSTITUTIONAL Rights, that goes too far - it is EXTREMIST, and I don't really know that anyone specifically subscribes to that viewpoint. The Child Sex Offenders quip is also off base, even if you do oppose mandatory sentences it does NOT mean that you believe criminals should not serve "LONG" sentences. By whose definition?
Item seven targets terrorists, who aren't likely watching the show. And then Neo-Nazis - again, not likely watching OReilly. That these groups are extremists goes almost without saying. It's extremely narrow.
Item eight is a throw away, and you must admit somewhat neutral. Of course, OReilly consistently presents Democrats as opposing "EVERYTHING" Bush wants to do. And he himself gives opinions that differ from Bush's on subjects such as Troop Build Up in Iraq and Border Patrol issues. Viewers know they are allowed to disagree with Bush on occasion, so they are NOT subject to the "Extremist" label. DEMONCRATS are obstructionist extremists.
The last item made my head swim a bit. BARBRA FRICKIN' STRIESAND??? As if she is a constant figurehead on the left. Why her? Sure I tend to agree with her, but I don't hear much about her on even a monthly basis. Oh, and nuking Iran put in the same sentence with Barbra - poor, misunderstood Babs!
Enough of this! It lasted only 3 minutes, but I was writing furiously to catch EVERY ounce of knowledge in order to pass it along. Please enjoy this knowledge responsibly!
Top Story "Who is Hugo Chavez? Why does Pat Robertson Want to Kill Him?": Ah HA! So this is the controversy that Fabian mentioned to me the other day. Well, it took Mr.Bill until Wednesday to pick it up. He brought on Douglas MacKinnon, Former Defense Dept. Official (vague title), to tell us what an awful man Chavez is. OReilly says that Robertson should not have said what he did, but that shining a light onto Chavez was a good thing. Besides, Robertson has apologized. ("Gosh, I'm sorry I said someone ought to assassinate you")
MacKinnon explains that Chavez is an extreme threat, not only to our nation, but to our hemisphere. He exports terrorists to Central and South America using petrol dollars. He props up Cuba and destabilizes Columbia and Brazil.
Deborah James of Global Exchange says that ALL of these charges are false. She gamely tries to talk over OReilly and MacKinnon, but she begins to sound shrill rather quickly. She claims that Chavez was democratically elected in overwhelming fashion, and that the vote was certified by International Observers including Jimmy Carter. (Insert OReilly sneer at Carter's name)
In the middle of her hyper rant, MacKinnon drops a bomb. He says that James is being paid by an organization that is financially supported by Chavez himself - she's a STOOGE for the man! She denies this, but you can see OReilly's smug look as EVERYTHING she has said looses ANY credibility in the eyes of each FoxNews True Believer. What bullshit - why bring her on if you KNOW she can be discredited with a single, well-timed, statement? Oh, yeah - that was the point. 6 minutes.
Summary of the Rest
>Two News Briefs: Sheehan is back in Crawford.State Dept. disapproves of new Israeli fence being erected in a Palestinian neighborhood. Minorities are more likely to be searched, arrested, and threatened during routine traffic stops./ alJaafari calling for calm between rival Shiite factions./ alSadr demands that a rival condemn the actions of his followers./ Pakistan admits some of their scientists gave North Korea high tech equipment and intelligence./ TS Katrina bay become a hurricane before hitting Miami.
>Impact Segment "NH Union-Leader/Jessica's Law": Joe McQuaid, President and Publisher of the newspaper, tries to get a word in. His paper dared to suggest looking more in depth at Jessica's Law before supporting it, much to the chagrin of one red-faced and yelling television personality. This was 7 ugly minutes of OReilly tantrum time.
>Personal Story "Overweight": Dan Minter of Consumer Freedom comes on to say that all the studies about how fat Americans have become are exaggerations. He says the study in question feeds myths. OReilly says it's ok to be fat - you can look however you want. He says that obesity may cost tax payers $39B annually, and that we should be protected from covering "self-induced health problems" with our tax dollar. Follow THAT line of thought to some ugly conclusions if you dare. 4 minutes.
>Factor Follow-Up "Intelligent Design": Richard Steinberg is the scientist who allowed an editorial supporting ID to be published through the Smithsonian Institute. OReilly gave him 5 minutes to defend himself without question.
>Unresolved Problem "President Bush": More on how Bush will be remembered by historians. Hmmm, I have my guesses! Douglas Brinkley was brought on to not say much. And Genevieve Wood, of The Center for a Just Society (RNinNC Note: Run SCREAMING from this woman AND her 'Just Society'!) was brought on to suck up to OReilly and LUV on Chimpy. 7 minutes.
>Back of the Book "Natalee Holloway": 4 more minutes. You think YOU'VE heard it all?!??! What about ME?
>My Take I'm tired as Hell, and I'm about to watch last night's show, so that you saner Kossacks don't have to! I need a beer.