O'Reilly Ain't So Smart

O’Reilly Ain’t so Smart

For me, reading Bill O’Reilly’s weekly column is somewhat like coming across a horrendous accident while driving on the highway. Deep down I know it’s wrong to slow down and survey the damage, but I do so anyway. As for O’Reilly’s writings, the intellectual disasters created by his obvious bias and shallow analysis of any topic always leave me bewildered and angry, and yet I just can’t say no!

Today O’Reilly targeted one of his favorite liberal punching-bags: actress and talk show host Rosie O’ Donnell. In particular, O’Reilly was crowing about O’Donnell’s upcoming departure from The View, which he attributed to advertisers’ belated pressures on the network to sever O’Donnell in light of her alleged history of intemperate on-air remarks.

Personally, I’ve never been a big fan of O’Donnell’s work (save for her appearance in “The Flintstones” movie). But what really galled me about O’Reilly’s column was how he used O’Donnell’s impending departure as more “evidence” of an alleged double standard in the so-called “liberal media.” Why, O’Reilly fumed, did Imus’ recent comments about the Rutgers University Women’s basketball team spark a firestorm of controversy and his precipitous firing, while O’Donnell’s comments about Donald Trump barely registered with the mainstream media? Or so O’Reilly claims.

Since O’Reilly seems a bit simple-minded, let me try and help him out. Let me attempt to explain why it’s patently unfair to compare the Imus case with O’Donnell’s.

First, O’Donnell did not call Trump a “nappy-headed ho.” Imus’ comment was unwarranted and reprehensible, especially for its blatant racism and sexism. Rosie O’Donnell initiated her feud with Donald Trump in late December 2006 by asserting that the messily divorced and re-married Trump was not the best spokesperson for morality in America (after Trump’s defense of the reigning Miss America who faced allegations of drug and alcohol abuse). Rude, perhaps, but not entirely unfair.

More importantly, there’s the issue of what I’d like to call “competitive advantage.” Both O’Donnell and Trump are established, wealthy, influential persons in their own right, with ready access to the media as a venue through which to feud. That was decidedly NOT the case when Imus launched his tirade against the young women from Rutgers. When he criticized the athletes, Imus was a veritable institution in talk radio, a highly regarded 1989 inductee into the Radio Hall of Fame with tens of thousands of fans. What comparable venue did the Rutgers women have, at least until the media picked up their story and ran with it? Frankly, Imus probably thought he was picking on another soft target that wouldn’t, and likely couldn’t, fight back in kind.

Wouldn’t it be nice if O’Reilly showed some intellectual rigor and stopped comparing apples to oranges?

Peace!
Historian

Dangerous Indiana

Dangerous Indiana

As a public service, I’d like to warn my readers to stay the heck away from Indiana this summer. The life you save may be your own!

As you might recall, a delegation of U.S. politicians, featuring Arizona Senator and Republican Presidential Candidate John McCain, recently visited Baghdad’s oldest and largest outdoor market of Shorja.

Senator McCain was accompanied during his leisurely stroll through the market by more than 100 heavily armed American troops, with armored vehicles behind them and Apache attack helicopters roaring overhead. The American VIPs themselves wore heavy armored vests the whole time.

Oh, yeah. McCain was also accompanied by some yahoo Congressman from Indiana named Mike Pence. Pence, who was characterized by The Indianapolis Star as “one of the most outspoken backers of continued U.S. involvement in Iraq” (www.indystar.com), had the audacity to claim the Shorja Market reminded him of “a normal outdoor market in Indiana in the summertime.”

Initially, Pence’s remark left me speechless! Shorja has been a repeat target of the Iraqi insurgency, having been bombed at least six times in the previous few months according to the New York Times. The day following the Americans’ special “made for TV propaganda” visit, twenty-one Shia employees of the market were kidnapped and murdered in apparent reprisal. After the Americans had left, witnesses interviewed in the market reported their unease, and complained that they’d tried to convey to their VIP guests just how unsafe they felt and impress on them the need for real, sustained security in Baghdad.

My second response was one of anger. Did Pence really fail to recognize the transcendent irresponsibility of his comment? Did Pence not realize that such American bravado in the face of daily insurgent violence would likely provoke a follow-up insurgent attack on the market or its workers (as did happen)? Is Pence really so ignorant of the violence that devastates Baghdad?

Sorry, I can’t accept that. For my own sanity, I have to believe that Iowa’s own Steve King is an anomaly. There simply can’t be TWO equally irresponsible ignoramuses representing the Midwest in Congress.

I’m forced to conclude that Congressman Pence meant what he said. The analogy must hold true. Indiana and Baghdad must be very similar, because the representative from Indiana would know the truth, wouldn’t he?

Ergo, Indiana must be a very, very violent place. Washington, send in the troops now! Better yet, let’s all stay away from Indiana this summer. No tourism, no travel, no stopovers, nothing. It’s simply too dangerous. Pence knows.

For your own safety and that of your loved ones, I repeat: AVOID INDIANA THIS SUMMER!

Peace!
Historian

A National Culture of Lies

You know, it seems to me our politicians have been getting progressively worse the past decade or so. There's a pervasive belief that if I, as a politician, loudly declare something to be "truth," then it IS the "truth," no matter what reality happens to be at the time. Sort of an "Emperor's New Clothing" theory run amok.

I know, I know, this isn't a new problem. It probably dates back to the caveman days. But it seems to be getting worse...

In modern times, I suppose you could say this trend started with former United States President Richard M. Nixon, who loudly declared "I am not a crook." Turns out he was.

Things quieted down for a decade or two. Then former U.S. President Bill Clinton loudly declared that he "did not have sex with that woman." Turns out he did (though it depends on what your definition of "is" is).

But in the George W. Bush administration, this particular brand of inane braggadocio has gone to new levels. It seems a day can't go by without some top-level official making some fairly absurd claim in public, then digging his heels in and refusing to budge.

When I was a wee lad back on the farm in Iowa I was completely entranced when I saw my first speed bump in town. I was five years old. The school bus took all us farm kids to the local high school in town, where we transferred to buses that went to whatever grade school we attended (there were four in town). In the high school parking lot, right there by the bus line, were two speed bumps.

I couldn't imagine what they were for. Why were there two asphalt lumps right there in the middle of the parking lot where everyone had to drive over them? It made no sense to me whatsoever. The entire morning at kindergarten I wondered and worried over those two big bumps in the road. Maybe some trees fell there when they made the parking lot and they just left them there? Or maybe they were really tunnels under the parking lot... No, that didn't make sense.

Finally it came to me in a flash when we went past them on the way home that afternoon - they were RAMPS! They were bicycle ramps - they had to be! Boy, I could picture myself, pedaling as fast as my little five-year-old legs could take me on my little blue bicycle, then WHOOSH I'd hit that bump in the parking lot andWHEEE I'd go flying!

I dreamt about it all the way home on the bus (a good hour, almost). I bet they put those bumps there because they're gonna have some special class, probably tomorrow even, when we get to bring our bikes to school and they're gonna teach us how to do wheelies like the big kids do! I bet they even have some loop-de-loop tracks like my Hot Wheels set! We'll all learn how to do tricks just like Evel Knievel! I bet that's what the teacher was talking about today when I was staring out the window. Tomorrow we're gonna have all sorts of fun! I wonder if Mom and Dad will let me ride my bike to school (it's only 10 miles or so) or if they'll put it in the back of the station wagon and drop it off at the school...?

I thought about it all through chore-time. I dreamt about it through supper. After we ate, I went outside and practiced on my bike so I would be prepared for the big day tomorrow. This is gonna be fun! I rode around and around the house, pretending there were speed bumps there that would make me fly. Do you think it would help if I wore a Superman cape? Maybe that would give me more lift...

That night when Mom was happily tucking me into bed, she went through the traditional "what did you do at school today" question and answer period. I told her all about the upcoming event. In great detail I outlined exactly what was planned - that the school was putting on a special program for us in the high school parking lot and we all had to take our bikes and we were going to learn how to do jumps and wheelies and there wasn't going to be any dumb old regular kindergarten that day and we maybe we would even do loop-de-loops and maybe there'd be a parade... Then, halfway through describing how Mom was probably going to have to pick me up after school with the station wagon 'cause I'd be WAY too tired by then to ride the ten miles home, I realized that none of this was true. Not one stitch.

I'd made it all up. I made it up simply because it sounded fun. It was so logical to me that it just HAD to be true. But you know, maybe if I keep talking... Maybe if I make it sound SO good... Maybe Mom will believe me, and maybe it will all come true after all... So I kept on going. I kept talking. I said how the teacher was going to give us special awards if we were real good. I told how I was going to go faster than the other kids because I had a blue bike and blue bikes are faster than red bikes. But with every sentence I said, I knew to the bottom of my heart, that Mom knew I was lying. But I just couldn't stop.

When do we tell the Bush administration that sometimes a speed bump is really a speed bump?

Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, being the highest law enforcement officer in the United States, is ultimately responsible for what goes on in the ranks under him, but is steadfastly, willfully denying any responsibility. Mr. Gonzales attended meetings where it was decided to fire eight U.S. District Attorneys for not being "Bushy" enough for the administration's taste. Yet, Mr. Gonzales stood in front of Congress last week and said over a hundred times that he could not remember anything about the incident or the meeting. Democrat and Republican lawmakers alike are calling for Mr. Gonzales to step down due to incompetence, yet Mr. Gonzales refuses to budge, and Mr. Bush praises his "honesty."

You see, Mr. Bush and Mr. Gonzales, with the backing of advisor Karl Rove, have decided that it would be inconvenient for the unpopular president to have go through the confirmation hearings needed if Mr. Gonzales were to step aside. Mr. Bush is pretty happy with the way his old friend Mr. Gonzales interpreted the Geneva Conventions, and knows that a Democratically controlled congress wouldn't easily approve another of Mr. Bush's "old friends" to the post - they'd demand a qualified individual who doesn't have an ideological axe to grind. So, Mr. Bush, Mr. Gonzales and Mr. Rove are spinning yarns. "I don't recall," was Mr. Gonzales' answer to over a hundred questions asked him by Congress. He's hoping that if he says it often enough, loud enough, it will start to become "truth" and he won't have to answer deeper questions.

It's wheelie time in the delusion.

I heard on the radio today that Social Security will run out in 2041. They cited several experts (actual trustees of the Social Security account) who all agreed. Yup, 2041 the money's all gone, and we should probably do something about it. Then they quoted President Bush, who said Social Security is doing fine and there's no problem at all, and he's not going to do anything about it. This is sheer wishful thinking on the administration's part. Mr. Bush wants to believe that there's no problem, so he states loudly that there is no problem and hopes that the lie will eventually be believed. (This worries me. I'll be 73 years old in 2041, enjoying my first year of retirement. I'm a-gonna need a bit of that cash, I'm afraid.)

Wheelie time.

Mr. Bush and his administration are currently asking Congress to give them more money to run the war in Iraq. They intimate if Congress doesn't give them the money, the Democratic members of Congress will be responsible for "losing" the war. They say this loudly and often, and they want you to believe this for good reason. They don't want you to know they're paying at least 40,000 Blackwater mercenary soldiers $30,000 per month to fight in Iraq, while simultaneously cutting back on our soldiers' military benefits. The average private in the Army makes between $1,300 and $1,500 a month. That means the Bush administration valuesBlackwater troops 20 times more than it values American troops. (Why doesn't your son have body armor? It may be because the Bush administration is paying mercenaries so well they can't afford to take care of our own troops.) Who isBlackwater USA? A private company owned by a man who reportedly donated a substantial chunk of change to the Bush campaign.

So, the Bush administration is paying mercenaries ("private contractors" in the administration's parlance) 15 to 20 times what it pays our soldiers, but is loudly blaming the Democrats for not supporting our troops?

It's wheelie time again. The administration simply cannot give Blackwater and Halliburton outlandish contracts and expect us not to notice. But they seem to think they can, if they brazen their way through.

Why do Bush and Company feel they can simply shout random statements at us and have us believe them? Well, because they've done it before, and it worked.

In the fall of 2000 presidential candidate Al Gore won the popular vote, but the Electoral College vote came down to a very few counties in Florida. The Bush campaign simply stood on a hill and hollered that they'd won, and eventually people came to believe them.

President Bush wanted to invade Iraq following the terrorist bombings of 9-11, ostensibly to bring democracy to the Middle East, so he and his administration loudly and often proclaimed that Iraq was supportingal-Queada (there turned out to be no connection), there were weapons of mass destruction aimed at Israel (there weren't), that the Iraqi people would forever praise us for liberating them from the oppressive regime that was in power (they didn't), and that the war would pay for itself in oil revenue (it didn't). The Bush administration hammered these thing into the American psyche for months and months, until they came to be believed, and we went to war.

Following the elections of 2000 and the run-up to the war in Iraq, who can blame the Bush administration for believing they can get away with lying to us?

But when I told my whopper of a lie I was promptly informed that lying is NOT tolerated. When do we hold our politicians up to the same standards I learned at the tender age of five?


(Cross-posted from my family blog.)

Things That Skitter Across My Mind

It's not the pain that bothers me...

...it's the hurtiness. Pain I can handle. Hurtiness sucks. Pain is when you kick the bathtub and break your toe. Hurtiness is when you trim your toenail too short (thus causing hurtiness). Pain is when you need stitches. Hurtiness happens when you rip the band-aid off your hairy leg.

Pain is 33 people dead in Virginia. Hurtiness is three days of 24-hour news coverage. We all know what happened. Let these folks grieve in peace.

Pain is going to war and seeing widows and fatherless children and veterans missing limbs, screaming in their sleep. Hurtiness is finding out later that the government lied. There were no weapons of mass destruction, and Iraq wasn't involved with al-Queda after all, and our leaders knew it.

Pain is Attorney General Alberto Gonzales using his high office as a political battering ram, firing people for not being "true Bushies." Hurtiness is Gonzales lying about it later, and Bush politico Carl Rove ordering possible evidence destroyed. There's more illegality here than meets the eye. The Hatch Act is involved, too.

Pain is a shrinking paycheck compounded by increasing bills. Hurtiness is finding out that the rich are getting richer. Did you know Halliburton gave Vice President Richard Bruce "Dick" Cheney $24 million, then moved to Dubai? Why did they move their headquarters out of the United States? How patriotic is that? On the same thought, why is the Bush family buying land in Paraguay, a South American nation that recently voted to ignore the International Criminal Court? Why would he want to move to a nation that won't extradite anyone to the United States?

Pain is Don Imus saying racist things on the radio. Hurtiness is the network firing him only after sponsors started pulling their money out. (If the network cared about morals they would have dealt with Mr. Imus promptly and not waited a week to see what "public reaction" was going to be. Did Mr. Imus deserve to be fired? Not if this was his first offense. It wasn't.)

Pain is what is happening around us. Hurtiness is the lies and misinformation we're being fed. Former U.S. President Bill Clinton lied and was held accountable and was made to squirm for his misdeed. When do we hold the current administration accountable? If President George Walker Bush and his advisor Carl Rove won't put their hand on a Bible and tell us what's going on, they must be hiding something, and I don't like that.

Coal, EPA and Keith Richards

We're still doing this? Really?

I heard on the radio a day or two ago that the United States Supreme Court told the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that by law they must actually do something. I guess the EPA has been dragging its heels since George Walker Bush was declared president in 2000, reluctant to take a stand on limiting greenhouse gases for some reason. This morning I read in Century of the Common Iowan that Alliant Energy is planning to build a coal plant in Marshalltown, Iowa.

The EPA hasn't been regulating us for six years? We're still building coal plants? Whaa...? In this day and age of shrinking ice caps, drowning polar bears, impending drought, increased storm activity and threat of rising sea levels we're STILL building coal plants? Aren't they, like, bad for our health?

(Position statement: I do believe the 99% of scientists who say global warming is real and is caused by human activity are right. But even if they're wrong, it's clear that the climate IS changing nonetheless, and we have the capacity to do something about it. What are the costs of rebuilding New Orleans? I dunno... But multiply that by thirteen zillion -- if sea levels rise even a small amount we'll be rebuilding Miami, New York, Boston, San Francisco... Just about every coastal city, town and village will be in trouble. There's a community in Alaska that's already relocating due to the changing climate eroding the foundations of their town into the sea. Even if humans aren't the cause of the climate change, we do have the capacity to do something about it. Is that playing God, this mucking about with nature? No. If you're going to use that argument to keep on polluting, you're barking up the wrong tree. God gave us dominion over the animals - that means even if we choose to shoot ourselves in the collective foot, we're supposed to protect the animals by saving their habitat, and He gave us the intellect to do so. To follow that argument through to it's conclusion, it's therefore a sin to pollute the environment.)

It's time to do some research on this... I need to know more. And I just read that Rolling Stone guitarist Keith Richards denied today that he snorted his father's ashes. That just HAS to tie into all this somehow, doesn't it...?


What's up with the EPA?

According to National Public Radio, the Bush administration's argument was that the EPA did not have the authority to regulate greenhouse gases, and therefore could not require automobiles to reduce emissions. Several states and environmental groups sued the EPA, saying the EPA did indeed have that power. The Supreme Court ruled against the Bush administration.

It was kind of like when Dorothy in the Wizard of Oz learned she always had the power to go home. The Supreme Court ruled Monday that the Environmental Protection Agency does, in fact, have the authority to regulate the greenhouse gases that contribute to climate change.

The ruling paves the way for individual states to regulate greenhouse emissions from automobiles on their own.

I guess the anonymous person who wrote this article for the Clovis News Journal in New Mexico doesn't like the ruling much, though:

Unfortunately, in Massachusetts et. al. v. Environmental Protection Agency et. al. a Supreme Court divided 5-4 engaged in precisely the kind of judicial activism that people on all sides of the ideological spectrum correctly deplore. In short, the popular passions around global warming carried the day, rather than calm legal precedent and thought.

The author then continues, pointing out that the Clean Air Act of 1970... "says the EPA administrator 'shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) ... standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant ... which in his judgment cause, or contribute to air pollution' coming from new cars." The author's argument being that the EPA administrator is not required by law to set standards for C02 emissions, and the Supreme Court is trying to push the administrator into making a judgment he doesn't want to make.

I disagree. I think the Supreme Court did right. The EPA now has control over it's mission once more (with congressional oversight, I'm sure), and individual states are therefore free to legislate the issue as the voters in those states see fit. It's American democracy at its finest. As was said by New Jersey State Environmental Protection Commissioner Lisa Jackson, this is "good news for New Jersey and other states trying to be proactive on climate change and greenhouse-gas emission reduction." source


But what about the coal plant?

Oddly enough, the Supreme Court handed down two separate rulings on coal plants earlier this week as well as the EPA ruling. According to National Public Radio, the Supreme Court said that old coal fire power plants must install new pollution controls if they make big repairs and increase the pollution they release. The other ruling "blocked a Bush administration policy to permit coal mining companies to remove the top of mountains in Appalachia and deposit leftover rock in valley streams."

Neither of these rulings directly affects the proposed new coal power plant here in Iowa, but the indirect ramifications are apparent -- it's going to be more expensive to run a coal plant in the future because the American people are calling a stop to the ruination of our environment.

Here's a question for you. Does it make sense to build a new coal plant in a state that has no coal, but rather has an abundance of wind power available? Personally, I like clean air. And why pay another state for coal when we can hire Iowans to build wind turbines?


So what's your point?

Simple. As I alluded to earlier, it seems that the nation is finally starting to realize that we've only been given one earth and we'd better take care of it. The Bush administration has been running roughshod over environmental restrictions for the last six years in the name of big business, but the people are speaking through both the legislative and judicial branches of government, saying that it's time to stop with the pollution and time to start planning a viable future for our children. In the past few weeks, the Supreme Court has given the EPA it's teeth (and dignity) back, and put a dent in using dirty old coal as energy.

The times, they are a-changing. And so, unfortunately, is the climate.


But what about Keith Richards?

I'm still not sure what to think about that. But I do know that Keith Richards is one of only a handful of people who would actually have to deny snorting his father's ashes... There just has to be a tie-in there somewhere, I just can't find it.

Obama in Sioux City - Impressive

On April 1, Senator Obama spoke at Mt. Zion Baptist church in the morning, and then went to the Sanford Center for an unadvertised “private” lunch with supporters and potential supporters. My wife and son and I were invited a few days before, and got there at Noon. We were a few minutes early and chatted with many friends, including Iowa Attorney General Tom Miller. I got to know Miller on his visits to Sioux City, and when we were both delegates to the '96 Democratic convention in Chicago. He was in Sioux City to support Obama's candidacy, and was pushing hard for me to commit to the Obama campaign.

George Boykin announced that we were to have lunch (catered by Hy-Vee - and nicer than Hy-Vee’s usual fare) and that Senator Obama would be there after we were done. When Obama arrived around 1:00, he spoke for a couple of minutes and promised to go around the room and shake hands with each of the 100+ persons and talk to them. He did exactly that, and took time with each person. Lots of photos, lots of books signed. When I was chatting with him, Tom Miller came up and put his arm around my shoulder and told Obama that I wasn't on board just yet, but that I was a "big fish" that he had to land. (What?! ??) Obama was gracious and moved on, talking to my son and my wife.

Before we left, we were given "red tickets" to the Morningside College event - nicer seats close-up. The place filled up quickly and I don't think there were more than a few empty seats. Allee Gymnasium was exactly the right size for this event. City Councilman Jim Rixner started the program on time at 3:00 welcoming everyone on behalf of the City, and introduced the introducers. Senator Obama came out to a standing ovation, and spoke for about 10 minutes and then opened it up to questions. He took un-screened questions for about an hour - covered a lot of territory, and covered it with grace and aplomb. He is clearly in his element doing town hall forums - not flashy or arrogant - just relaxed and fully in charge. We were deeply impressed with just about everything he had to say, and especially impressed with the way he handled himself.

When he finished, he shook hands for a while and we moved on. Many excited and happy people were pushing to get up to the rope line to have a chance to shake his hand or get a close-up photo.

I have been extremely impressed with Obama’s book, “The Audacity of Hope,” and seeing him in person has strengthened my already high opinion of him. Obama is one of my “top two” candidates for president, but I am not ready to commit to his campaign at this point. Sunday’s visit left me content that if Obama is the eventual Democratic nominee, we will be in very good hands.

Bill O'Reilly Sets Me Straight

Bill O’Reilly Sets Me Straight

It’s all because I hate George Bush, or so pundit-extraordinaire Bill O’Reilly informed me this morning in his column.

It can’t possibly be anything the Bush Administration has done. It apparently has nothing to do with the fact that an inept Bush Administration rushed into a disastrous war in Iraq on the basis of bogus intelligence, nor the fact that thousands of American servicemen and women have since died in Iraq, not to mention the tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians who’ve lost their lives as “collateral damage.” It can’t have anything to do with the reality that Iraq has been turned into a terrorists’ laboratory and recruitment center, or that the Iraqis overwhelmingly now feel that life was better under Saddam Hussein, or that much of Iraq’s educated elite have already voted with their feet and fled their homeland since 2003. That the real masterminds behind the 9/11 attacks – Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda – STILL haven’t been brought to justice shouldn’t trouble me at all, I guess. Nor should I take umbrage over the international goodwill squandered by Bush’s macho unilateralism, or the rollback of progress towards democracy worldwide that the Bush Administration has presided over.

Nope. O’Reilly knows it’s all because I hate George Bush.

I might have thought my angst had something to do with Bush domestic policy. Secret renditions of prisoners, suspension of habeas corpus, domestic spying, botched Katrina relief, a highly partisan Attorney General with selective memory … Shouldn’t be my concern, I guess.

If not for my alleged hatred of George Bush … Will O’Reilly ever find it in his heart to forgive me?

Beware that word “hatred,” folks! It’s a carefully calculated rhetorical trick to stifle dissent. It’s also been a favorite of the President and his supporters in recent years. Remember Bush’s address to the nation immediately after 9/11, when he “explained” the alleged motivation behind the attacks? Bush said simply: “[The terrorists] hate our freedoms!”

No, they don’t. They dislike our specific policies in the Middle East and elsewhere, particularly our spectacular inability to promote a settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (or even any real indication we care). They’re also not terribly keen on American popular culture, but can you really blame them for having qualms about a culture that would lionize the likes of Britney Spears or Paris Hilton?

No, by branding legitimate policy disagreements as arising from simple “hatred,” one can effectively discredit those concerns as something irrational. What is irrational, of course, needs neither be confronted nor discussed. The irrational can’t really be discussed. A critic effectively loses all basis for argument.

Don’t let blowhards like O’Reilly shut down all conversation with his dismissive taunts. Let the world know what you think!

Peace!
Historian