The Hot Blog

This is Bill, and this is FOX NEWS. This is who they are, and apparently they get a pass. They get a pass on election night 2000, the get a pass with the tea parties, and they get a pass on the third person whose blood is seemingly on their hands. Why anyone continues to let this channel stay on the air is beyond me. Oh I forgot. IF you put some blonde piece of strange on TV for five hours a day, and have her say something stupid each and every hour. People will accept you as a real news organization. Silly me for forgetting this point.

Cue Lex fantasizing about a career in OB/GYN in 5...4...3...

It's gonna be a long, drunk night, I suspect.

VERY CLASSY, Laz. Ironic, since you've just posted two things FAR more despicable than anywhere I'd ever go.

For your encore, maybe you should resurrect that gem where you ACTIVELY ENCOURAGED ME TO COMMIT SUICIDE, since you've got the MORAL HIGH GROUND and all.

This is what I do not understand. Cultural critics on the right continually blame the media and Hollywood for societal problems, as if watching violent movies or seeing sex on TV actually causes people to have sex and commit violent acts. But, when someone claims that their words and behavior play a role in something like George Tiller's murder or the murders in the Tennessee church, they immediately cry foul. So, Hollywood is capable of and does influence behavior, but they are not and do not.

WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, DP?

TEN SECONDS into the show, plastered on the screen, it says, "Anarchy and vigilantism will destroy a society. Americans should condemn the murder of George Tiller." O'Reilly stated it, as well.

He did EXACTLY what you suggested in your opening sentence. Tiller terminated 1000's of pregancies, which O'Reilly and much of the country deems immoral. But O'Reilly points out that Tiller's actions was LEGAL under Kansas law.

O'Reilly noted that the suspect has ties to a FAR-RIGHT group.

"But the simple decency of showing concern that his words could help push a deranged individual further down the path to action seems reasonable."

WTF are talking about?!? O'Reilly should go on national TV and admit to some culpability IN A MURDER? For using his constitutional freedom of speech to condemn a despicable practice that many feel is itself murder? For reporting on the litigation Tiller was involved in?

Your blind-spot to your own amazing bias is remarkable.

For everyone else, here's a link to O'Reilly's report.

http://www.foxnews.com/oreilly/

By the way, using DP's own logic, if Nikki Finke were ever to commit suicide, he would be as responsible for the act as O'Reilly is for this murder, based on his incessant, public, personal attacks, that could have reasonably pushed a troubled person deeper into depression. I hope David would have the simple decency to admit it.

Christ I am sick of hearing this referred to by the right as vigilantism. Tiller had committed no crime so this does not fall under a viligante action. This was murder and intimidation.

As far as it being a despicable practice, the vast majority of late term abortions were pregnancy's that were planned to be carried to term, but are terminated due to either complications to the health of the fetus or health of the mother. This aren't cases of women who are simply too lazy to make an appointment in their first trimester or fickly changing their minds of the last minutes.

These are medical decisions, heaven forbid we place those in the hands of Doctors and patients instead of blowhard PM magazine hosts and gun-toting militia members.

"This aren't" should of course be "These aren't".

If someone ever murders Bill O'Reilly, I call for Keith Olbermann's arrest.

If Jim Cramer dies, I call for Jon Stewart's arrest.

If Miss Calfornia dies, I call for Perez Hilton's arrest.

If Rev. Jeremiah Wright dies, I call for Sean Hannity's arrest.

If Glenn Beck dies, I call for Stephen Colbert's arrest.

If Charlton Heston dies, I call for Michael Moore's arrest. Wait a minute...

mystery there is a little more to it than that. O'Reilly compared him to Nazis and al-Queda. On his radio show he talked about how he'd like to get his hands on him. His producers went to Kansas and ambushed Tiller's associates. He called him Tiller the Killer, among other things. I don't believe that O'Reilly is culpable in Tiller's murder, but I also don't agree with his rants against Hollywood either. Conservatives are supposed to believe in personal accountability.

So Code Pink, ANSWER, and all the other anti-war groups are going to denounce the guy in Arkansas who murdered the military recruiter, right? Because otherwise they're guilty of pulling the trigger. Right?

The problem with trying to inculpate O'Reilly is that Tiller was a target for the anti-abortion crowd years before anyone had heard of O'Reilly. There was no such thing as Fox News when Tiller's clinic was bombed in '85, or when he was shot in '93. The '91 protests didn't have anything to do with him, either. O'Reilly's rhetoric was heated, virulent, fervid, what have you. But I doubt it was powerful enough to travel back in time and convince people in the '80s to target Tiller. The die hard anti-abortion crowd was gunning for Tiller long before O'Reilly came along, and didn't need him to remind them. Or incite them. O'Reilly had nothing to do with it.

O'Reilly referred to Tiller as a murderer or "Tiller The Killer" over a dozen times. Has Olbermann ever called O'Reilly a murderer? No, he calls him (rightly) a dumbass windbag. Is there equivalency? Give your head a shake. If you are an apologist for O'Reilly, think that his rhetoric isn't influential, don't believe that the far right noise machine doesn't create the true division in the country, then you probably woke up one morning and thought "I wonder if anyone's having a tea party today?" The Tiller case is TERRORISM plain and simple and the man who shot him should be treated as such.

"So Code Pink, ANSWER, and all the other anti-war groups are going to denounce the guy in Arkansas who murdered the military recruiter"

Of course not because those ANSWER guys are cut from the same cloth as the hard core anti choicers (While you may find Code Pink obnoxious, I have never heard any of them call for violence). But you are correct that ANSWER is a bunch of thugs, they however do not have the major media access like the far right. Have you heard anyone on any cable news program call militairy recruiters murderers? pedophiles? or even Nazis? No, the street chanters and skinny anarchists might throw these out at protests but they are not repeated or given any legitamacy by the news media.

The Knoxville church shooter was afeared of Democrats and they found these books in his home:

Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism by Sean Hannity

The O'Reilly Factor: The Good, the Bad, and the Completely Ridiculous in American Life by Bill O'Reilly

And then the wingnut that killed the police officers recently was afeared Obama was going to take away his guns - a Glenn Beck talking point that even he had to address on the air. Fail.

Now yes, any nut can have any number of media in his/her home. But there is a pattern emerging here. And the difference is that Code Pink isn't advocating buying up guns to protect yourself from the Boogeyman. Or actual secession from the country. This is a collective psychosis.

It's all about the GUNS. And FOX is inciting confused people to violence in the name of fear, delusion and paranoia disguised as patriotic outrage. Which is all the GOP has left these days.

I have a confession to make. I, too, am partly responsible for this crime. I've watched O'Reilly's program, and if people didn't watch, he wouldn't be on the air. Although he never so much as hinted in the vaguest of ways that murdering Tiller was the least bit justifiable, and there's no evidence to suggest that the suspect has ever heard one of O'Reilly's rants, O'Reilly's stated stance obviously created a Butterfly Effect that led us to the situation we have today.

"mystery there is a little more to it than that. O'Reilly compared him to Nazis and al-Queda. On his radio show he talked about how he'd like to get his hands on him. His producers went to Kansas and ambushed Tiller's associates. He called him Tiller the Killer, among other things."

You must be an avid watcher. :p Look at this way: many people consider abortion to be a heinous practice that takes a human life. Tiller took 60,000 of them. From that perspective, condemning this murder is showing compassion. But you're right, O'Reilly's producer AMBUSHED Tiller (with pointed questions). "Killer Tiller" is a nickname Tiller got a long time ago.

mystery, nobody's buying what your party is selling anymore. Maybe you can recruit Lex.

Let me amend that: only disturbed folks with low self-esteem are buying what you're selling.

I consider unjustified wars of choice to be heinous, but I won't be advocating the murder of Rumsfeld, Cheney and/or Bush.

"there's no evidence to suggest that the suspect has ever heard one of O'Reilly's rants"

I think CNN reported that when they were checking the suspects web correspondance to see if this was part of a larger action they found that he had posted multiple times on O'Reillys message board.

This is not about people having different views than our own. This is about how we live together with these different views. When a major personality who is respected by people on his side of the fence singles out a doctor, calling him Baby Killer Tiller, calling him a Nazi, saying that he is only in the business to profit off the killing of children and the misery of others, this is not debating or discussing an issue, this is simply inflaming rhetoric by a supposed news organization directed at a private citizen. This is irresponsible and reprehensable.

Yes, Hcat has it right. O'Reilly's objective wasn't journalism or discourse, it was ratings.

(ironic tangent: Dictionary.com's word of the day is 'hortatory')

And the Right (and sadly, a few on the Left) scream about the freedom to own guns so we can protect ourselves from each other. I love this pathetic pro-gun argument that if only people were all armed, we wouldn't have these shootings. But three officers and two soldiers were gunned down. And I guess kids are screwed. Until we hook them up with a Glock.

I actually saw some rightie editorials outraged that the rapper, T.I., who was sent to jail for having a gun, was reaching out to gang bangers to put down their guns. American Psychos.

"... saying that he is only in the business to profit off the killing of children and the misery of others, this is not debating or discussing an issue, this is simply inflaming rhetoric..."

Unless of course you are talking about President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Oil Companies, the war in Iraq, American soldiers, Vietnam, Wall Street, the Catholic Church, capitalists,...

...then of course it will be deemed the debating, and discussing of an informed opinion.

OK kids, as you were.

"Now, we have bad news to report that Tiller the baby killer out in Kansas, acquitted. Acquitted today of murdering babies. I wasn't in the courtroom. I didn't sit on the jury. But this there's got to be a special place in hell for this guy." - Bill O'Reilly, March 2009

Nicol, I think that comment merits some elaboration...if you are so inclined.

I would not hold my breath jeff. Nicol does not seem to do elaboration these days.

What part would you care for me to elaborate on?

Uh, quite simply, how about expressing your point in a way that could lead to dialogue, instead of just asking a rhetorical question? You're making reference to unknown quotes from unknown speakers to make a very specific point in a way designed to avoid discussion, not engage in it.

Are we not having a dialogue here, Jeff. How can you ask me to not ask a rhetorical question when that is your exact modus operandi?

Nicol, long as I've got your ear, please hop over to the Moore thread and enjoy my BRILLIANT thoughts on Global Warning. Even that gangly gasbag John Nolte would agree.

And IS there a worse-designed website than BIG HOLLYWOOD? It's un-fucking-readable, but I'm thrilled that Nolte is tanking over there and no one reads his shit.

Nicol, do you believe that O'Reilly's comments about Tiller were an attempt to engage in a dialogue and not just rhetoric? Does Bill strike you as the kind of guy who really cares about rationally discussing serious issues?

So this guy was listening to O'Reilly when he was arrested in 1996 for having a fake license plate on his car that pledged his allegiance to one of those far-right anti-government/militia-type groups, right? Right? Hello?

"The Knoxville church shooter was afeared of Democrats and they found these books in his home:

Let Freedom Ring: Winning the War of Liberty over Liberalism by Sean Hannity

The O'Reilly Factor: The Good, the Bad, and the Completely Ridiculous in American Life by Bill O'Reilly"

Well, no wonder, if those were the only two books in his home. Perchance was there a Bible there, too? And the yellow pages? A J Crew catalog? Maybe a Tom Clancy novel? Or Harry Potter? If you had some perspective you might be able to figure out how irrational what you're saying is. But you seem rather monomaniacal and literal, so I doubt it. You are almost as paranoid as the stereotypical viewer of Fox News is supposed to be. Takes one to know one?

"But you are correct that ANSWER is a bunch of thugs, they however do not have the major media access like the far right."

The far right has major media access? Really? Anyone who thinks that what passes for programming on Fox News is far right is so far in a leftwing dreamworld that they've lost touch with reality.

Nicol, I don't know about you, but no, we are not having a dialogue here today. We're talking at each other, not to each other. Now, I feel like I've made a lot of efforts to honestly and openly reach out to you in the past in the sense of give-and-take, and never really gotten anywhere, and I'm sorry that you apparently haven't sensed that.

So as for where we go from here, that's up to you.

MEGYN KELLY GIVES ME A BONER. I have TOTALLY punched the clown watching FOX. YEP YEP.

"The far right has major media access? Really?"

You just gave your game away, Blackcloud. Nuff said.

Lex,

Ok, ok. I read some of your posts. I gather that you trashed Big Holywood here as a way to buffer your anti-environment comments so that people do not think you are some closet righty...somethin' like that?

How do you know they are tanking? Are there numbers?

Where do you find what website ratings are?

Breitbart isn't exactly stupid when it comes to launching successful websites.

By the way...I am seeing Katy Perry in concert this summer. Isn't she one of your faves?

Jeff,

"Now, I feel like I've made a lot of efforts to honestly and openly reach out to you in the past in the sense of give-and-take, and never really gotten anywhere, and I'm sorry that you apparently haven't sensed that."

Understand that I sincerely feel the same way. When I do elaborate you call me a windbag...what's the point?

Stella,

I do not get Fox News. Up until recently we were not allowed to get it in Canada. Now it is only on a pay subscription service.

"Nicol, do you believe that O'Reilly's comments about Tiller were an attempt to engage in a dialogue and not just rhetoric?"

I believe he genuinely believes what he believes.

"Does Bill strike you as the kind of guy who really cares about rationally discussing serious issues?"

About as much as Michael Moore, George Clooney, Sean Penn, Cindy Sheehan, Keith Olbermann, Joe Biden, Tina Fey, Alec Baldwin, Bill Maher, David Letterman, the Stop H8 brigade, Howard Dean, Al Franken, Hugo Chavez, Barney Frank, Campbell Brown, Dan Rather, Jon Stewart, Oprah Winfrey, Joy Behar...get my point.

I am not defending O'Reilly. I do not watch him. I am saying people who live in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Nicol, we obviously haven't been on the same page. Let's start over -

For one thing, none of the people that you just listed are posting on this blog. For another thing, they're a pretty diverse group of people, from total lunatics and dictators (Sheehan, Chavez) to honest observers and elected officials, and they're not all saying the same things. Can you narrow down what your claim is and what you would like as a remedy?

First, mystery, if Nikki did commit suicide and there was any indication that it was because of how she felt about being called out on the web, I would feel terrible guilt and some responsibility.

If someone who comments here regularly murdered her on a claim of some sort of principle... I would feel massively responsible. I wouldn't feel that I was legally responsible. But I would be physically ill.

I don't write about Nikki as a person, though I occasionally refer to specific issues with what she does to attack me on off-the-blog-record attacks to studios and others. I attack her work. And Bill O'Reilly should be free to attack ANYONE's work. But when you turn it personal and spin small truths into big lies with an agenda, you should be called out. And when you repeatedly call someone a murderer on the most watched cable news show, when that tree falls, the forest is not empty.

For me, the most heinous thing about the O'Reilly involvement were his claims, based not on details but on charges that were made by the right and didn't survive the court system, that the doctor did 3rd trimester abortions "on demand." He reiterated the notion that these babies were viable and/or did not impose a direct threat to the mother. He claimed that the guy did these abortions purely for financial gain, not even on a political principle with which O'reilly disagreed. He reduced it to a money issue. He used the bullying tactics that have driven all but 3 doctors in the country - gee, you think being murdered might keep you away, rather than morality? - to try to prove his point, as in "Only 3 doctors do this!!!"

The fact is that in Kansas TWO doctors have to agree that there is a real threat to the child or the parent in order to go forward with a 3rd trimester abortion. Aside from the very loud rhetoric, where were the details? Where was a single case in which a viable child was murdered just days or weeks from being born?

As I said in defending the Bush Administration from overattacking on the left... show one case of a Regular Joe whose privacy rights were trampled upon by wiretapping or being retained without a charge or even records from the phone companies being looked over and the American public would stand up and force a change. But there was no example and there have been no real examples. This is not to say that there are not very real issues with the government crossing the line at times. But if you want to scream bloody murder, I expect to have at least one story the proves your extreme fears.

Neither O'Reilly nor Operation Doctor Murder has one. All they have is extreme rhetoric... with religious undertones... the source of most wars in the world's history.

Finally... all this crap about "he opened by calling it a murder," is pure Wells-ian tap dancing. Let's tell everyone we have the moral position and then go anywhere but... not unlike burying the first suggestion that Disney's film may not really have a problem in paragraph 30 and the sanest quote in the piece at the very end.

People complain in here when I write, "I don't have much to say" and then do 500 words. (500 words is, obviously, not a lot for me.) When you lead with the excuse - I CONDEMN THIS - and then go on for 20 minutes plus about how right you were about this baby murderer and concerns that you overdid it are all just a vast left wing conspiracy, your opening claim is invalidated. "Safe sex means a condom every time outside of a long term committed relationship... but baby... I want to feel you... it's different for us... nothing will happen..."

Bullshit.

And again... I call that bullshit on both sides. Called it on The Clintons. Call it on O'Reilly. And Randall Fucking Terry is a menace as well. How connected was this murderer to Operation Rescue? Time will tell. Evidence so far suggests stuff, but not firmly enough to make a blanket condemnation.

Go look at Lake of Fire and feel how the protests lead to violence in a way as natural as beer sales in the fourth quarter lead to fights at sporting events. You wonder how they get people to blow themselves up to kill others? This is exactly how it's done. Feed that fire until there is no other logical answer.

And why did this guy kill this doctor at a church? Probably because it was too hard to kill him at his office... after there have been 2 or 3 attempts on his life there already.

"You just gave your game away, Blackcloud. Nuff said."

I gave my game away by suggesting that the actual American far right does not have major media access? And what game would that be, besides pointing out the obvious? You really have no clue, Christian, do you?

And Nicol - you are right. There are people on the left who call for Bush & Cheney to be tried for war crimes. And I think that is insane too.

There are crimes of the office and there are crimes of the personal. As elected officials, they did the wrong things, in my opinion, but they were, as far as I can tell, within the law. And after electing them a second time, America has no one to blame but itself.

Not an excuse for this. Bill O'Reilly, of all people, knows how to provoke (legal) without punching someone in the nose (illegal). He is in the business (legal) of brainwashing people to see the world as he does. And he uses those techniques, which Fox News specializes in. Fair and Balanced? I mean, really. Even as a rightie, you don't really think that network is fair and balanced, do you? Not saying MSNBC is... different conversation. But...

And... "I've watched O'Reilly's program, and if people didn't watch, he wouldn't be on the air."

Please. Such rhetorical bullshit. Gee, if I knew this nutjob had explosives in his car once and he was stalking this doctor for years, if I had only killed him preemptively, I could have saved a life. Ugh.

Jeff,

"For one thing, none of the people that you just listed are posting on this blog."

Are you saying this is the new standard? Then why are we talking about O'Reilly? Does he post here under a fake name I am not aware of?

"For another thing, they're a pretty diverse group of people, from total lunatics and dictators (Sheehan, Chavez) to honest observers and elected officials, and they're not all saying the same things."

Not sure what your point is here. Are you saying that an elected official cannot use inflamatory rhetoric? Do you think Sheehan is the only lunatic here? What about people who love the dictator? Can they too be lunatics?

You say they are not all saying the same thing...what is it you think they are all saying?

You say they are diverse; in what ways? Are they similar in some ways? Can a dictator not have something in common with an elected official? Can an elected official not have something in common with a lunatic...an observer...a pundit? Please elaborate. Your question contains too many parameters you have not defined.

"Can you narrow down what your claim is and what you would like as a remedy?"

Again, far too vast. Tell me what you - think - my claim is. Then I can accept or reject it. Much easier way to discuss.

Thanks.

Why on Earth should Jeff try to guess what you're trying to say, Nicol? When I can't figure out what my students are trying to say, I tell them so, then give them a C. Or worse. The onus is on them to tell me what they mean as plainly as they can, in language I can understand and reveals to me what they're trying to say. Sometimes I may be able to fill in the gaps, but as I always tell them, I can't read their minds. So if it's not on the paper, it's as if they never said it, or thought it.

Blackcloud- you know you're right, I was wrong about the far right having media access. Fox News is not a Militia station reporting on black helicopters and watching for the rapture. I meant that the issues for the wack-jobs on the far left (and I have not found abortion to be one of them)are never given mention in the main stream media as the issues of the far right. Have you seen any Mummia specials on MSNBC? Any questions on whether Bush was behind 911 on CNN? But on their highest rated program O'Reilly calls a doctor a murderer and hopes he goes to hell. I don't recall Maddow or even that windbag Olberman wishing condemnation on anyone.

I had a whole explication written out where I went back to Nicol's two longest posts on this thread and came up with an interpretation of them. Then Typekey crapped out on me and I lost it all. Which helped me to realize that it was silly of me to jump through this particular hoop.

Nicol, if you want to say something with clarity and meaning, please just say it. My initial response to you was to ask for elaboration since your point seemed to be vague and obscure. If you're not interested, I'm fine with simply dismissing your statements as blanket kneejerkism.

And honestly, Nicol, this may or may not have been your intention, but your 12:36 post reads like someone deliberately trying to digress, distract, and dance around all possible issues with a cloud of rhetoric. I really want to believe you're acting in good faith here.

It's sad when people with college educations like O'Reilly have no problem stirring up anti-intellectual ideas in people who who haven't had the same kind of opportunities as him.

"Unless of course you are talking about President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Oil Companies, the war in Iraq, American soldiers, Vietnam, Wall Street, the Catholic Church, capitalists,......then of course it will be deemed the debating, and discussing of an informed opinion. OK kids, as you were. "
Nicol- First, thanks for the condescension. Second, you seem to be saying that it is not inflammatory rhetoric but simply a tit for tat exchange. We criticize your side, you criticize us, its all great fun. Wall Street and the Catholic Church are far beyond legitimate criticism and we all know the names of the Priests and Hedge fund bankers have been singled out and vilified by the left (for doing their perfectly legal job) and then been murdered.

Dave,

"And Nicol - you are right. There are people on the left who call for Bush & Cheney to be tried for war crimes. And I think that is insane too."

Dave...many called for Cheney and Bush to be assasinated. More than just war crimes. Howabout all of the left wing web-sites that called for the rape of Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin...where's the outrage? I will not provide links but if you are the surfer I think you are...you know they are there. And that sort of thing never gets called on by the left nor mentioned in the mainstream media. I do not deny there are not lunatics on the right...but they are on both sides. The mainstream media just focuses on the crime against the left...not the ones by the left.

"Bill O'Reilly, of all people, knows how to provoke (legal) without punching someone in the nose (illegal). He is in the business (legal) of brainwashing people to see the world as he does."

Unlike Michael Moore? Unlike Kirby Dick? Unlike Bill Maher? I can list more.

"All they have is extreme rhetoric... with religious undertones... the source of most wars in the world's history."

No... if by war you imply death...Marxism in the 20th Century has killed more people than all of the religious wars that preceded it. Notions of "equality" is what has led to most death...not religion. That is just historical fact.

"Even as a rightie, you don't really think that network is fair and balanced, do you? Not saying MSNBC is... different conversation. But..."

I do not watch Fox news. I do not subscribe to it. I saw it once on a free weekend preview. What I am saying is, it - is - the same conversation. You cannot say Fox is propaganda when MSNB or CNN or CBC (in Canada) is still in business. All news is a world view. Reporters collect data and leave things out and put things in. It creates a world view. You cannot demonize Bill O'Reilly for doing the same thing Michael Moore does. You cannot demonize Fox for doing the same thing that CNN or MSNBC does. Do they create world view that is perhaps unfavourable to the left...perhaps.

But do you actually say the other sources are fair to the right? Really?

I did not come to my views by watching Fox. I came to them through life experience.

"How connected was this murderer to Operation Rescue? Time will tell. Evidence so far suggests stuff, but not firmly enough to make a blanket condemnation."

You have already smeared by making the insinuation. Kind of like the "When did you stop beating your wife?" sort of question. Again, why not focus on the man who shot up the recruitment center. Why is this not of importance? Was he not also politically and religiously motivated? Why not link that to the anti-war and anti-Amercian military movement of the past two generations. We've all seen the movies and heard the commentators that demonize the troops and military.

You are on a very tenuous slope if you think the left has no incitment to hatred on its hands.

Again, how about Bill Ayers...no violence came from him? No violence has come of "peace protests". From a devotion to Marxism and anti-Americanism.?

"The fact is that in Kansas TWO doctors have to agree that there is a real threat to the child or the parent in order to go forward with a 3rd trimester abortion."

Was he not under investigation for this. That one of the "second opinion" doctors revceived money from him? Just asking.

"Aside from the very loud rhetoric, where were the details? Where was a single case in which a viable child was murdered just days or weeks from being born? "

I will not deny that this is a valid question, but on the flip side...how would we ever know? I think it would be safe to assume that anyone who was working at the clinic would be on the same page.

Nicol, thanks for the added detail and elaboration.

Jeff,

"Then Typekey crapped out on me and I lost it all. Which helped me to realize that it was silly of me to jump through this particular hoop."

Always save your comments. I learned that the hard way.

"And honestly, Nicol, this may or may not have been your intention, but your 12:36 post reads like someone deliberately trying to digress, distract, and dance around all possible issues with a cloud of rhetoric."

Which is exactly what your questions to me sound like.

HCAT,

"Wall Street and the Catholic Church are far beyond legitimate criticism and we all know the names of the Priests and Hedge fund bankers have been singled out and vilified by the left (for doing their perfectly legal job) and then been murdered."

Uhh...Marxist countries anyone? The left wants to think on a global scale so I respond in such. The left uses Marxism as a "critical tool" but always negates the horror show that that tool has caused around the world.

Hcat, I don't know what specials have been on MSNBC. I hate it when they air all that prison crap on the weekend. I'm sure there was a Mumia special at some point. Doesn't mean it supposed his innocence, but it's a pretty news junkie story, so someone probably had one. The Obama citizenship thing did get some media play, so that certainly is one instance of a far-right meme getting MSM coverage. But I don't really know what Olberman, Maddow, O'Reilly et al. say, since I find them all insufferable blowhards, so avoid them as much as possible.

Also, I must modify my denial that the far-right has major media access somewhat. Lou Dobbs is pretty far right; at least as far as immigration is concerned, he espouses a particularly nasty brand of rightwing populism. But he's on CNN. I'm certainly not denying that O'Reilly is a rightwinger. He is. But even though he's further to the right, he still fits somewhere within the mainstream. Just as Olberman and Maddow are within the mainstream of the left. Neither can be considered on the fringes, the way their enemies would like to believe. ANSWER is the fringe, that funeral-protesting church is the fringe. And neither of them is on TV.

By the way, do Olberman or Maddow advocate prosecuting Bush and co. for war crimes? I don't know, so I ask. I think that's a far left, extremist position. But not everyone who holds it is a far left extremist. By the way, what happened to the whole torture thing? It seems to have vanished overnight. I'm sure Obama isn't complaining.

Nicol, how can a simple question from me along the lines of "Please elaborate" or "What is your claim" POSSIBLY sound like an attempt to distract and digress? Really? ERGH. This is why we don't make progress.

"Dave...many called for Cheney and Bush to be assasinated."

Didn't someone write a novel about that? Same guy who wrote that absurd "history" of WWII, I believe.

Jeff,

You have to give me something to make progress Jeff. I have written books on the Hot Blog over the past few years. You have a pretty good idea where I come from.

But you never elaborate. You rarely come forth and say what you stand for. Hence...give something. Do not just lob questions. Write a few paragraphs to me about what you think I believe.

Remember Jeff, asking questions is also a rhetorical debating tactic. Not every question aked comes from a genuine or sincere place. Sometimes people want others to elaborate just so they can get ammo to attakc their views. I'm just sayin'.

Blackcloud,

I have no idea what you are referring to.

Nicol - I was talking about a single person on the right using inciting rhetoric and you respond to me by asking me to defend the position of every lefty across the spectrum who has ever used marxist language. I cannot defend or would wish to defend every leftist from every country that ever was and do not see why I would have to to legitimize my criticism of O'Reilly's reporting style.

"ANSWER is the fringe, that funeral-protesting church is the fringe. And neither of them is on TV. "

And the weird thing is they are exactly alike. I have interacted a bit with both types and they have that same identical look to them. They live in the same type of bubble where everything they read, watch, or talk about has to do with the cause. I would argue that the left ignores its fringe far more than the right ignores theirs. You saw video of these types of Obama is a Muslim people at the McCain rallies but I guarentee you that none of the ANSWER folks were voting for Obama.

Nicol, I think it's clear, now and in the past, that we're communicating at cross purposes. I'm trying (and not always succeeding) to find middle ground, to move the discussion, to find a shared reference point and advance from there. You seem, it appears to me, to be more interested in jousting, in defense, in not allowing for any chink in your armor to be shown. You obviously don't trust me, and I'm sorry for that (and I'm sure I've given you reasons) but I can't make you trust me if you don't want to, and I don't see the point of writing a few paragraphs (!) about your worldview. I mean, really? What do you expect to be the point of that?

"But I don't really know what Olberman, Maddow, O'Reilly et al. say, since I find them all insufferable blowhards"

I agree with you there, I loved Maddow in the election coverage when she and Buchanan were head to head (which sometimes lead to an actual debate), but her show does seem to follow Olberman's echo chamber format. I do have a soft spot for Morning Joe.

Don't like blowhards? Aside from being a hero and a warrior, this is who should make medical decisions in consultation with his patients regarding their health:

http://tinyurl.com/oq94gt

Blackcloud, not sure what country you're living in, but here in America, we just had eight years of a far right government that used the corporate media to sell their war and dismantle the constitution as they saw fit. I watched the MSM pimp Iraq; I didn't see Noam Chomsky on TV, I saw Bill Kristol.

And Lou Dobbs is kinda far right, but Hannity, Beck (who was on CNN) and all the others out there are moderates? I guess I really don't have a clue.

you have more than a clue, christian. hannity and beck are about as moderate as the third reich in my book (not to mention beck is as mad as a freakin hatter)

(and yes, we do have fox news here, and it's scarier than any horror movie)

BECK RULES.

Who knew?

"One of the things I admired most about him was that he did not shy away from helping the most vulnerable among us: the 12-year-old rape survivor who couldn't come forward about her pregnancy until it was almost too late; the low-income mom who spent weeks and weeks scrounging up enough money to have an abortion; the couple whose wanted pregnancy went terribly awry."

link (and links inside). Hat tip Melissa Silverstein.

http://www.bluemassgroup.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=15852

Nicol... are you really fighting this fight without having examined the evidence at all? Just responding as a gesture to political unity?

And no... never read anyone calling for the rape of Palin or Coulter. Would be reprehensible. But 2 wrongs still don't make a right. (insert punchline) Comparing web rants to Fox News, however, is bullshit. Or maybe you think news organizations have the same level or responsiblity as commenters and fringe bloggers...

And saw Glenn Beck caught and called out for lying on The View the other day. Took it like the weasel he is. Tap danced, selectively apologized, never admitted that he lied, and talked about how he expected the abuse. It wasn't him fault for lying... it was their faulted for calling him out on it.

Beck, Hannity, O'Reilly, et al. are to the right of the Republican Party. As were and are Bush and Cheney, although not so far as people usually think. But, again, we're talking about the Republican Party. Which no more encompasses the whole of the right of the political spectrum in the United States than does the Democratic Party the left. Saying Beck and co. are far right is like saying Maddow is far left. Far left of what? There are actual far left and far right people in America. You will never see them espousing their views on Fox, or MSNBC, or CNN, or anywhere in the MSM or what Chucky in Jersey derisively calls "the so-called liberal media." Anyone who thinks that the bloviators on the cable news networks represent the far reaches of the American poliitcal spectrum lives in a very, very tiny world.

"hannity and beck are about as moderate as the third reich in my book"

Get another book, Leah, one that's not so shallow and juvenile.

Nicolson Baker wrote a novel whose protagonist fantasizes about assassinating Dubya, and followed it up with one reinterpreting WWII as an imperialist war foisted on the world by Churchill. He's the guy I alluded to earlier. Couldn't remember his name earlier.

It doesn't matter that O'Reilly does not show remorse. He is a modern-day Goebbels doing the dirty work of News Corp. Don't be surprised if advertisers pull their ads off his show at the least.

Even though this killing is clearly an act of Christian terrorism, I don't expect the US government to invoke the USA Patriot Act.

wow, chucky drops a lit match into the methane

and blackcloud, i think you're a clever, insightful and articulate fellow but man, you really need to lighten up sometimes! i would think it's obvious when someone is exaggerating for effect on a blog; i don't ACTUALLY think hannity and beck are comparable to the third reich in their lack of moderation, that's just absurd, i simply used the first ultra-extreme political organization that came to mind to make my point. not everyone is utterly serious and literal when expressing themselves (esp. not me)

If this is Christian Terrorism, then there's a Reformation going on, and Tiller and Herd are modern day Luther and Calvin.

Al-Fox-Qaeda must be held accountable for their Crusade. Reproductive rights are individual rights.

On the Bravery of George Tiller;

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2009/05/31/the-bravery-of-george-tiller.aspx

OK, Leah. Mea culpa. Everyone else is so deadly serious on this particular thread it's easy to miss when someone's being facetious. Especially when there are people who actually believe what you said in jest. For example, Chucky, who compared O'Reilly to Goebbels. That gives O'Reilly entirely too much credit. And O'Reilly, too, who called Tiller al-Qaeda and a Nazi. Anyway, I shouldn't have been so hasty in denouncing you, especially when you are, as you pointed out in your defense, one of the more playful members of our community. Less shooting, more asking next time. I'll try!

Perhaps this Sotomayor nomination will finally put the kibosh on the reflexive use of the epithet "racist." God knows, it's one that should be retired. Like fascist (and antibiotics), it's become almost impotent from overuse.

point taken about the thread being quite serious, blackc (and in trying to catch up sometimes i skim as i did a bit in this case), so in the interest of reciprocity and personal responsibility i will forthwith endeavour to be more sensitive to the temperature and tone of a thread before jumping in with some stupid off-hand sarcastic exaggeration, and then find myself baffled when someone actually takes me seriously! i get it :-)

I will, indeed, be very pleased if the people reflexively trying to sell the idea that Sotomayor is a reverse racist get laughed at, hard, in the face.

I am very unwilling to buy into victimization hype... but at the same time, the idea of the first Hispanic on the Court and the third woman being attacked for being those things and thinking they offer her a different perspective than the SIX middle-and-upper-class white guys... I mean, say you don't want a liberal, but this kind of racial spin is grotesque.

What I find odd is that though she's different in some ways (racial, social background), in others she's straight out of the cookie cutter mold of SC justices: Catholic, Ivy League college and law school, federal district and appelate judge. To me, the latter traits are more worthy of criticism, because she would reinforce what's already there. Thus, the pick isn't nearly as bold as it might have been. My question is, then, do the traits in column A outweigh those in column B? Personally, she's different. Professionally, I really don't think so. So does the personal mean more than the professional? Tough question. I won't pretend I have an answer.

"And saw Glenn Beck caught and called out for lying on The View the other day. Took it like the weasel he is. Tap danced, selectively apologized, never admitted that he lied, and talked about how he expected the abuse. It wasn't him fault for lying... it was their faulted for calling him out on it. "

You know that Beck lied? Are you suggesting that, other than mischaracterizing the order of introductions on the train (big f'n deal), that seats were NOT held for Goldberg and Walters? Beck insisted that he had several witnesses who could corroborate his account; the View ladies were not present at the time and are simply rejecting the possiblity. I've watched the segment twice; you assume too much.

"I will, indeed, be very pleased if the people reflexively trying to sell the idea that Sotomayor is a reverse racist get laughed at, hard, in the face."

The Sotomayor quote in question is racist, by definition. She didn't say her experiences offer her a "different perspective", as you suggest-- she said she'd reach a BETTER conclusion than a white male judge (who's spinning now?). The simple litmus test is to imagine what would happen if a white judge said that his experiences as a caucasian enable him to make better decisions than, say, a hispanic female. He would be drawn and quartered. Especially if Bush had nominated him.

By the way, are you gonna use the fact that you criticized the Clintons as some sort of lifetime get-out-of-criticism-free card? Maybe you were right then; you're wrong now.

Mystery, your litmus test would be inaccurate. Especially if your hypothetical caucasian male was making that statement as part of a larger rhetorical argument (I can't imagine what that could possibly be, but who knows).

GLENN BECK: Mischaracterization, mischaracterization of you, Ms. Walters. I'm sorry for the bad...

Walters said that Beck approached them and that she was very nice and polite to him. Beck agreed.

JOY BEHAR: Why did you lie about that?

BECK: Why did I lie about that?

BEHAR: Yeah, why did you say she came over?

BECK: I don't know. I came over.

BEHAR: So you just had a brain fart, or what?

BECK: Yeah, I guess so. Yeah.

WHOOPI GOLDBERG: So Steve Kroft, I wanted to make sure before I brought this up to you. We didn't reserve our seats. I don't know... Wait, let me just...

[Crosstalk]

BECK: You're accusing me of lying. Let me tell you what...

GOLDBERG: You did lie! What do you mean I'm accusing you?

BECK: I'm sorry.

GOLDBERG: You sat there and you were a lying sack of dog mess. Come on, Glenn. You lied.

BECK: I'm sorry that I...

GOLDBERG: You know what, Glenn? Here's the thing that was true: I was not particularly happy to see you because I watch your show...

BECK: You don't like me.

GOLDBERG: No, I don't like your views. I don't know you, OK? I don't like your views, OK? There's a lot of people that I don't like whose views that I don't agree with.

BECK: True.

GOLDBERG: That's OK. But for you to make something up like that, and drag... Wait a minute... and drag us in, and put it as though we...

BECK: I was told by the Amtrak... and I have other people that were with me.

GOLDBERG: That's not what you said.

BECK: I was told by the Amtrak people that those were going to be reserved, and I would be...

GOLDBERG: You dragged us into it, and it was a lie.

BECK: Excuse me. I would be so excited when I find out who's sitting there.

GOLDBERG: It was a lie.

BARBARA WALTERS: Why didn't you bother, as a reporter, who goes on to check? As it happened, Whoopi and I had a hard time finding seats. We finally did at the end of the car. Steve Kroft...

BECK: So you're saying...

WALTERS: Wait. And you saw him come in. There were no seats for Steve. He and his wife were separated. You are an investigative reporter.

BECK: NO, I'm not.

WALTERS: You're a reporter.

BECK: No, I am not.

WALTERS: So you check no facts at all, right?

BECK: No, ma'am. I am commentator. I am a commentator. I commentate on life.

WALTERS: As a commentator, do you ever check your facts?

GOLDBERG: But you were wrong here. And here's why it pissed me off, here's why it pissed me off more than anything: Because regardless of that, when I got off that train, and your big man was standing there, I had a good moment with you. And I thought, 'OK, this is all right.' When I saw this (referring to the clip) and what went on to it, I thought, 'Why would you drag me into it?' But number one, why would you say that she called you over with that voice? 'Come over here.' And then say, I mean, it's there.

BECK: Do you, do you not think, that I mean, I mean... did you not think that I knew this was coming? Did you not think I knew this was coming? I have no problem defending... I have no problem...

GOLDBERG: I don't care if you knew what it was. Why did you lie, Glenn? Why did you try to make some stuff up about Barbara and I? That's what I'm trying to find out.

BECK: I'm sorry that I, to use Nancy Pelosi's words, 'misspoke' about being, you calling me over. You did not call me over. I went over....

WALTERS: Now, let me just ask you something else, because we did invite you on because you are a very hot talent. And you say you are a commentator, and we all have different points... Bill O'Reilly's on with us. We don't agree. We do agree. We love him, etc. But when you say you're a commentator, you never check any facts that you are giving out to the public?

BECK: Ma'am, I will tell you. I will show the people that were with me. I was traveling with three other people.

WALTERS: No, I'm talking about in general. I'm talking about moving along.

BECK: Of course I do.

Mystery... Beck misled... you don't want to call it a lie... thin-split hair to me.

No... I mention prior willingness to condemn left wingers because guys like want to claim blindness to being fair about things like this.

And...

"In our private conversations, Judge Cedarbaum has pointed out to me that seminal decisions in race and sex discrimination cases have come from Supreme Courts composed exclusively of white males. I agree that this is significant but I also choose to emphasize that the people who argued those cases before the Supreme Court which changed the legal landscape ultimately were largely people of color and women. I recall that Justice Thurgood Marshall, Judge Connie Baker Motley, the first black woman appointed to the federal bench, and others of the NAACP argued Brown v. Board of Education. Similarly, Justice Ginsburg, with other women attorneys, was instrumental in advocating and convincing the Court that equality of work required equality in terms and conditions of employment.

Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging. Justice O'Connor has often been cited as saying that a wise old man and wise old woman will reach the same conclusion in deciding cases. I am not so sure Justice O'Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes that line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am also not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise. Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life.

Let us not forget that wise men like Oliver Wendell Holmes and Justice Cardozo voted on cases which upheld both sex and race discrimination in our society. Until 1972, no Supreme Court case ever upheld the claim of a woman in a gender discrimination case. I, like Professor Carter, believe that we should not be so myopic as to believe that others of different experiences or backgrounds are incapable of understanding the values and needs of people from a different group. Many are so capable. As Judge Cedarbaum pointed out to me, nine white men on the Supreme Court in the past have done so on many occasions and on many issues including Brown.

However, to understand takes time and effort, something that not all people are willing to give. For others, their experiences limit their ability to understand the experiences of others. Other simply do not care. Hence, one must accept the proposition that a difference there will be by the presence of women and people of color on the bench. Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see. My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.

I also hope that by raising the question today of what difference having more Latinos and Latinas on the bench will make will start your own evaluation. For people of color and women lawyers, what does and should being an ethnic minority mean in your lawyering? For men lawyers, what areas in your experiences and attitudes do you need to work on to make you capable of reaching those great moments of enlightenment which other men in different circumstances have been able to reach. For all of us, how do change the facts that in every task force study of gender and race bias in the courts, women and people of color, lawyers and judges alike, report in significantly higher percentages than white men that their gender and race has shaped their careers, from hiring, retention to promotion and that a statistically significant number of women and minority lawyers and judges, both alike, have experienced bias in the courtroom?

Each day on the bench I learn something new about the judicial process and about being a professional Latina woman in a world that sometimes looks at me with suspicion. I am reminded each day that I render decisions that affect people concretely and that I owe them constant and complete vigilance in checking my assumptions, presumptions and perspectives and ensuring that to the extent that my limited abilities and capabilities permit me, that I reevaluate them and change as circumstances and cases before me requires. I can and do aspire to be greater than the sum total of my experiences but I accept my limitations. I willingly accept that we who judge must not deny the differences resulting from experience and heritage but attempt, as the Supreme Court suggests, continuously to judge when those opinions, sympathies and prejudices are appropriate.

There is always a danger embedded in relative morality, but since judging is a series of choices that we must make, that I am forced to make, I hope that I can make them by informing myself on the questions I must not avoid asking and continuously pondering. We, I mean all of us in this room, must continue individually and in voices united in organizations that have supported this conference, to think about these questions and to figure out how we go about creating the opportunity for there to be more women and people of color on the bench so we can finally have statistically significant numbers to measure the differences we will and are making."

For whose benefit did you post The View transcipt? I JUST watched it again before I posted my summary, and it was accurate. Beck "misled" about the order of introductions, which he readily admitted to, but he stands by his account of the Amtrak employee's story (which was the main point of contention). Walters and Goldberg are making an empty accusation.

Believe what you want.

By the way, your View transcript is inaccurate. Here's the correct one:

CROSSTALK
CROSSTALK
CROSSTALK
CROSSTALK
CROSSTALK
CROSSTALK
CROSSTALK
CROSSTALK

The end.

Why are you guys still watching and giving fox the numbers?
Just don't watch.
Just don't watch.
Just don't watch.

I have a really good friend who shares my political beliefs (and then some - he's from the SF Bay Area) and who's an actor, which means he's almost always at home during the day, and he watches Fox News INCESSANTLY. He says he likes knowing what the debate points are, but I think he's some kind of masochist.

FOX NEWS is all about the fine cooze. If you enjoy good-looking blonde haired cooze selling you a bunch of bullshit from the right. FOX NEWS is for you.

Beck lies when cries. That's just one obvious example of his total bullshittery.

mystery, defender of the bullies who need no defending, Beck and O'Reilly. Good thing they have you on their side. I'm sure none of the white males on the Supreme Court over the years ever voted on a case from the perspective of a white male. Surely that never happened. And a judge like, say, Samuel Alito would never discuss having to consider his own background and the background of his ancestors when deciding a case on immigration.

Dave - Your wrong about the Beck story. How do I know? Because I was in my car, heard it live on XM. He made the statement and his producer Stu stopped and called him out on who approached who. Beck corrected which turned into the atypical exchange which was a normal riff on Beck. What Goldberg and Walters argue about are two different points - who approached who and reserved seats. Beck corrects the first, like he did on his show, and stands by what he was told about the seats. Did he comes across like shit? Yeah, because he was more concerned with appealing to a wider female audience.

I don't comment on Maddow, KO, etc...because I don't watch them and I don't think it's fair to to rip them for something possibly taken out of context. I understood the Moore column because he releases movies under the guise of documentaries. But what fucking bearing does Tiller have to do with movies in any regard? I can even argue for Prop 8 being more relevant to film than this.

FOX makes movies.

Christian - FOX makes movies.

And do you know who funds half of Fox's movie slate? George Soros.

Fox TV bounces both of Judge's shows, but they give three to McFarlane and make him the richest showrunner in the game. And let's forget the Simpson crew who employed Gore's useless daughters for years. But in Christian's tunnel-reality, everything from Newscorp is rightist fascism.

So please - fucking keep it. Dave's a big boy. If he wanted to respond, he would have.

I was just making a funny Martin S.

No I never once wrote that everything from Newscorp is right wing fascism. Of course there is the ironic paradox of FOX's subversive cartoons opposite of the Newscorp unarguable rightist bent.

FOX gotta eat!

And I still get a tingle down my spine everytime I hear the Fox fanfare. Nothing to do with their news.

Thanks for signing in, . Now you can comment. (sign out)