On tonight's episode of "The O'Reilly Factor", Bill O'Reilly resorted to name-calling.
Here's what happened:
O'Reilly was commenting on Thursday's Democratic Presidential Debate, specifically the part where ABC News' Peter Jennings questioned Wesley Clark about the support given to him from "controversial filmmaker" Michael Moore. Moore has officially endorsed Clark for President in '04, and is the best-selling author of Downsize This!, Stupid White Men, and Dude, Where's My Country, as well as the filmmaker behind the award-winning Bowling For Columbine.
Moore said that he would love to see a debate between Clark and Bush, and he said the debate would be "The General versus The Deserter", referring to many articles in major newspapers about Bush's service (or lack thereof) in the Texas Air National Guard. According to the articles, there is a year where Bush is....well....AWOL. He's just unaccounted for.....for a year.
On the O'Reilly Factor, Bill called Michael Moore (and Stuart Smalley) a "smear merchant". Yes, O'Reilly fans, it's true - your "humble correspondent" resorted to name-calling, proving that the Spin actually STARTS here. O'Reilly also made the statement that "people who hate America love Michael Moore". That seems rather libelous.
The underlying problem with this situation is what is known as "lazy journalism". Mr. Jennings is a respected journalist who has been in the news business for many years, and he knows better (or really should know better) than to just say things without checking facts. He was implying that there is no evidence that Bush is a "deserter", when in fact there are many news articles that speak of his suspicious missing year of service.
What's the lesson we've learned here, kids? You can go AWOL without being prosecuted...IF your last name is Bush.
Wow, it seems that last name gets you a lot. It lets "C" students get into Ivy League Schools. It gives drug users a chance to make it in politics. And it also gets you the title of "President" even if you didn't get the most votes. Thank you, members of the Supreme Court, for helping America make up its mind. How in the world did we ever choose presidents in the past without them stepping in to save us?
In all fairness, Bill O'Reilly is not always wrong, just as Michael Moore is not always right. That statement comes from me reading Dude, Where's My Countryand Bill O'Reilly's Who's Looking Out For You? Both authors bring up valid points in many areas.
It just seems shameful to me that O'Reilly only considers certain liberals "smear merchants", while he considers conservatives who act the same way on the other side of the political spectrum friends (i.e. Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity).
Here is a letter I emailed to O'Reilly, and I encourage anyone reading this who cares about ethical journalism and this country to email Bill and ask him to actually be "fair and balanced" like his network claims to be:
TO: oreilly@foxnews.com
Subject: The Smear Merchant Spin
Mr. O,
The spin actually started when you referred to Michael
Moore as a "Smear Merchant". People who like America
can also like Michael Moore. It seems on the Factor
that liberals get the "Smear Merchant" tag while your
"friends" such as Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity don't.
Is this fair and balanced?
Josh Carples
Montgomery, AL
For More Information:
Michael Moore has links to the "deserter" news articles
Bill O'Reilly's site at Fox News
Wesley Clark for President
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (Fair)
1.11.2004
Once, Twice, Three Times a Loser...........
Wow!
I just read an editorial in the Montgomery Advertiser that sums up all the stuff I've been saying about Roy Moore this whole time!
The link is below and it's well worth reading.
Here are some excerpts:
"In his personal life, Moore is free, and always has been, to practice his religion as he feels led to practice it. He, like any other American, can worship as he chooses in his home or in any house of worship or in any private forum. Government has in no way impinged upon his rights."
Wow, that sounds familiar.......here's more:
"But Moore again like any other citizen is not free to impose his personal religion or any other kind on anyone else. He is not free to use his public position to push his personal religious beliefs on anyone else.
"Nor is he free to ignore with impunity the orders of a higher court. That blatant violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, not his practice of his faith, is what cost him his job. And it should have."
See, I'm not the only person who says that Moore did not lose his job because of his faith. He lost it because he disobeyed a federal court order. It actually has nothing to do with his faith - it has to do with his actions.
According to the article, Moore lost his case at every step of the legal process: He lost the first time in the US District Court, the second time at the 11th District US Court of Appeals, and the third time when the US Supreme Court refused to hear his case.
Unlike Moore and many of his followers, however, I don't need a government (or newspaper) to affirm my personal beliefs for me to feel whole......
Here's the link:
"Moore never made to choose"
I just read an editorial in the Montgomery Advertiser that sums up all the stuff I've been saying about Roy Moore this whole time!
The link is below and it's well worth reading.
Here are some excerpts:
"In his personal life, Moore is free, and always has been, to practice his religion as he feels led to practice it. He, like any other American, can worship as he chooses in his home or in any house of worship or in any private forum. Government has in no way impinged upon his rights."
Wow, that sounds familiar.......here's more:
"But Moore again like any other citizen is not free to impose his personal religion or any other kind on anyone else. He is not free to use his public position to push his personal religious beliefs on anyone else.
"Nor is he free to ignore with impunity the orders of a higher court. That blatant violation of the Canons of Judicial Ethics, not his practice of his faith, is what cost him his job. And it should have."
See, I'm not the only person who says that Moore did not lose his job because of his faith. He lost it because he disobeyed a federal court order. It actually has nothing to do with his faith - it has to do with his actions.
According to the article, Moore lost his case at every step of the legal process: He lost the first time in the US District Court, the second time at the 11th District US Court of Appeals, and the third time when the US Supreme Court refused to hear his case.
Unlike Moore and many of his followers, however, I don't need a government (or newspaper) to affirm my personal beliefs for me to feel whole......
Here's the link:
"Moore never made to choose"
1.09.2004
Is Moore really that newsworthy?
If it wasn't for the Montgomery Advertiser's daily dose of Moore, Moore, Moore, I just don't know how the religious right who run this State could survive. How many times can you repeat the same thing over and over again without it getting old?
All this does is bring up the same old questions over and over again....
Why must the State affirm a religious belief for it to be valid?
Why does Moore still act shocked that he lost his job?
Why does Moore feel that his actions speak for the entire State?
Maybe if Mister Former Chief Justice would think on that last question, he could get some answers in his own life. I, for one, think it is a sad day when a government has to back a religion just so people will feel "safe" in their beliefs. And we know the conservative media personalities can never make their minds up. One minute, they say that this country was founded on Christianity (or "Judeo-Christian values"), the next minute, they're saying how this is a secular country, and that's why we've prospered as a nation. Make up your minds.
I'm sick of people saying that Christians are losing all their rights and symbols, and that Christians are losing control of this country because of "liberal judges" and secularists like the ACLU. Oh No, not the big bad ACLU! Wake up! Christians run this country! Look at ol' Dubya - the most powerful man in the world - he doesn't hide the fact that he's religious. Recently, the media has covered which Democrats running for Dubya's job are religious, and how their religious beliefs will affect their numbers at the polls. A poll was taken about how many Americans want a religious leader running the country.
Here's the solution - for all you people who want a religious president - there's one running this year...........
Al Sharpton!
That's right - the Reverend Al Sharpton. You want a religious person running the country? What better way to see that than to vote for a Reverend? He's the one who always comes across the best in the debates anyway. It's about time we have a Black man in the White House. Let's change history this year. He's a Democrat - and he's the most religious candidate - a Reverend.
Al Sharpton for President in '04!
more info:
More Moore in the Montgomery Advertiser (Yawn)
Al Sharpton in 2004!
All this does is bring up the same old questions over and over again....
Why must the State affirm a religious belief for it to be valid?
Why does Moore still act shocked that he lost his job?
Why does Moore feel that his actions speak for the entire State?
Maybe if Mister Former Chief Justice would think on that last question, he could get some answers in his own life. I, for one, think it is a sad day when a government has to back a religion just so people will feel "safe" in their beliefs. And we know the conservative media personalities can never make their minds up. One minute, they say that this country was founded on Christianity (or "Judeo-Christian values"), the next minute, they're saying how this is a secular country, and that's why we've prospered as a nation. Make up your minds.
I'm sick of people saying that Christians are losing all their rights and symbols, and that Christians are losing control of this country because of "liberal judges" and secularists like the ACLU. Oh No, not the big bad ACLU! Wake up! Christians run this country! Look at ol' Dubya - the most powerful man in the world - he doesn't hide the fact that he's religious. Recently, the media has covered which Democrats running for Dubya's job are religious, and how their religious beliefs will affect their numbers at the polls. A poll was taken about how many Americans want a religious leader running the country.
Here's the solution - for all you people who want a religious president - there's one running this year...........
Al Sharpton!
That's right - the Reverend Al Sharpton. You want a religious person running the country? What better way to see that than to vote for a Reverend? He's the one who always comes across the best in the debates anyway. It's about time we have a Black man in the White House. Let's change history this year. He's a Democrat - and he's the most religious candidate - a Reverend.
Al Sharpton for President in '04!
more info:
More Moore in the Montgomery Advertiser (Yawn)
Al Sharpton in 2004!
1.03.2004
A New Year, and an election year...Mr. Show says "Vote"
A new year of new events - leading up to the big election coming in November, where voters will decide to vote for change, freedom, and civil liberties, or decide to keep the mis-leader of the War on Terror around four more years. That's four more years of losing constitutional freedoms, tax cuts for the rich (yes, Mr. O'Reilly, I said it - for the rich), and Oil, Oil, Oil.
Many questions will be answered in the near future. Will the election be Bush vs. Dean? Will Wesley Clark pull ahead? Will Hillary jump in at the last minute and take over the democratic party? Will other democrats back Dean if he gets the nomination? Will Joe Lieberman ever officially wear a "Hello, my name is: Republican" name tag?
Let your voice be heard. Vote. Listen to Mr. Show.
There's an interesting interview with comedian David Cross on Alternet.org. Many people know him from his HBO series "Mr. Show". A funny guy, and also very political. Probably considered one of the "Elites" by conservative political commentator Laura Ingraham, who seems to put any TV personality who doesn't like Bush in that category. Hey Laura, why don't you "Shut Up and Sing"?
Here is a quote from Cross about voting: "It's pretty galling that I know people will wait in line for a weekend to see a f*ckin' movie that's gonna be there for three months, but won't wait in line for 12 minutes to vote. If not for yourself, then for everyone else, it's truly one of the most selfish things you can do. Just the fact that you won't educate yourself on the issues. It's truly one of the most selfish things you can do. Especially because so many people have suffered to obtain that right, or obtain the idea of that right."
And how right he is. We've all seen it. People get this my-vote-doesn't-count attitude and refuse to get involved or care about what goes on. Some people think "It doesn't affect me," but it does. It all affects you in one way or another. What if we got half the people who think their vote doesn't cout out to the polls this election? What kind of difference would it make when the last president only "won" (not really) by what - 537 votes?
Here's what Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly want you to just "get over": The guy with the most votes did not win in 2000. George W. Bush officially became the first Supreme-Court-appointed President in the history of this country.
If you're wondering how the person with the most votes lost, there's a book you should read - "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast. Palast is an investigative journalist who thoroughly examined the whole Florida situation right after the "election" (put in quotes because we use that term loosely).
Here is a list of books to read for the New Year:
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast
"Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore
"Dude, Where's my Country" by Michael Moore
"The Oh Really? Factor" by Peter Hart (of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)
...and to be fair, also read "Who's Looking Out for You?" by Bill O'Reilly (always get both sides)
"Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" by Al Franken
"When You Ride ALONE, You Ride With Bin Laden" by Bill Maher
Here are some sites for more information:
David Cross Interview
I Know What You Did Last Election
Impeach Bush
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
Mis-Leader
Move On
Bush In 30 seconds
Many questions will be answered in the near future. Will the election be Bush vs. Dean? Will Wesley Clark pull ahead? Will Hillary jump in at the last minute and take over the democratic party? Will other democrats back Dean if he gets the nomination? Will Joe Lieberman ever officially wear a "Hello, my name is: Republican" name tag?
Let your voice be heard. Vote. Listen to Mr. Show.
There's an interesting interview with comedian David Cross on Alternet.org. Many people know him from his HBO series "Mr. Show". A funny guy, and also very political. Probably considered one of the "Elites" by conservative political commentator Laura Ingraham, who seems to put any TV personality who doesn't like Bush in that category. Hey Laura, why don't you "Shut Up and Sing"?
Here is a quote from Cross about voting: "It's pretty galling that I know people will wait in line for a weekend to see a f*ckin' movie that's gonna be there for three months, but won't wait in line for 12 minutes to vote. If not for yourself, then for everyone else, it's truly one of the most selfish things you can do. Just the fact that you won't educate yourself on the issues. It's truly one of the most selfish things you can do. Especially because so many people have suffered to obtain that right, or obtain the idea of that right."
And how right he is. We've all seen it. People get this my-vote-doesn't-count attitude and refuse to get involved or care about what goes on. Some people think "It doesn't affect me," but it does. It all affects you in one way or another. What if we got half the people who think their vote doesn't cout out to the polls this election? What kind of difference would it make when the last president only "won" (not really) by what - 537 votes?
Here's what Sean Hannity and Bill O'Reilly want you to just "get over": The guy with the most votes did not win in 2000. George W. Bush officially became the first Supreme-Court-appointed President in the history of this country.
If you're wondering how the person with the most votes lost, there's a book you should read - "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast. Palast is an investigative journalist who thoroughly examined the whole Florida situation right after the "election" (put in quotes because we use that term loosely).
Here is a list of books to read for the New Year:
"The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" by Greg Palast
"Stupid White Men" by Michael Moore
"Dude, Where's my Country" by Michael Moore
"The Oh Really? Factor" by Peter Hart (of Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting)
...and to be fair, also read "Who's Looking Out for You?" by Bill O'Reilly (always get both sides)
"Lies, and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them" by Al Franken
"When You Ride ALONE, You Ride With Bin Laden" by Bill Maher
Here are some sites for more information:
David Cross Interview
I Know What You Did Last Election
Impeach Bush
Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting
Mis-Leader
Move On
Bush In 30 seconds
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)