Thursday, May 19, 2005
Talk Radio Goon To Kill Michael Moore? Don't Blame Bill O'Reilly If Michael Kinsley Gets Beheaded! Condi Buys Kuwaiti Bullshit About Women Suffrage.
Talk Radio Douchebag Wants To Off Michael Moore
The following story comes by way of Media Matters. The entire story is excerpted below:
Clear Channel radio host Glenn Beck said he was "thinking about killing [filmmaker] Michael Moore" and pondered whether "I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it," before concluding: "No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong?"
From the May 17 broadcast of The Glenn Beck Program:
BECK: Hang on, let me just tell you what I'm thinking. I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out -- is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, "Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore," and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, "Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death." And you know, well, I'm not sure.
Beck's program is syndicated by Premiere Radio Networks (owned by radio conglomerate Clear Channel Communications on more than 160 radio stations across the country to an estimated audience of 6 million listeners. He has previously falsely accused Moore of "taking help and money from Hezbollah" and called Michael Berg, who criticized the Bush administration after his son Nick was beheaded in Iraq, "despicable" and "a scumbag."
Full story, just so you don't think I'm making this shit up like Ann Coulter: http://mediamatters.org/items/200505180008
What kills me is how these right-wing talk radio shitheads continuously cry that conservatives are under constant attack by mean-spirited liberals. Even if this was true, and it is not, does that give assholes like Beck the right to say things like this? Sure, this type of speech is protected under the First Amendment to the Constitution, and rightfully so. HOWEVER, when Harry Reid grew a temporary pair of balls a couple of weeks ago (as described in a previous post here) and called President Loser a loser, he got beaten up but good by the Fox phonies and their wannabees. Reid then apologized for his temporary lapse of sanity and begged Bill Frist not to give him an atomic wedgie.
Maybe the question should be re-phrased. How about this: If assholes like Beck have the right to say things like "I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore", then doesn't it logically follow that I, or anyone who is rightfully outraged by his outburst, can say something like "I'm thinking about ruining Glenn Beck's life"? Notice that I avoided using the "k" word. I wouldn't want any overly sensitive conservatives to get bruised feelings or anything. Instead, I would hope such ruin would come about as the result of massive boycotts of those companies and organizations that sponsor his show, but since his audience is likely to be of the same mindset as he is, that seems to be a slim hope. Maybe the FCC should investigate. After all, if they went after Howard Stern for twenty-odd years for saying sexually explicit things on HIS radio program, then it follows that they should be just as vigilant, if not more so, in prosecuting this ass clown for broadcasting his wet dreams on the public airwaves.
Bill O'Reilly Suggests A Headless Michael Kinsley Will Wake Liberals Up
Now we hear from Fox Foghorn Bill O'Reilly, aka The Man Who Is Never Wrong, And Even If I Was, It's All A Liberal Plot To Discredit Conservatives. Okay, so it's a long-winded title, but then again, it's owner is similarly long-winded. Well, lest you begin to think of my typing in a similar fashion, here is another excerpt from Media Matters where Big Bad Bill suggests that liberals will only "wake up" to the common sense of not giving Gitmo detainees legal representation when Michael Kinsley is beheaded by Al Queda. Read on:
Fox News host Bill O'Reilly said that Los Angeles Times editorial board wouldn't understand his objection to legal representation for detainees at Guantànamo Bay, Cuba, until terrorists "grab [editorial page editor] Michael Kinsley out of his little house and they cut off his head." He further opined: "And maybe when the blade sinks in, he'll go, 'Perhaps O'Reilly was right.'"
From the May 17 broadcast of Westwood One's The Radio Factor with Bill O'Reilly:
O'REILLY: No, no. I want you to read it. Go to LATimes.com. I want everybody in the country to read this editorial, 'cause it just -- I mean, you'll be sitting there pounding the table like I did. How can they -- how can they think this way? How can anyone think this way? You know, "Shutting down Guantànamo and giving suspected terrorists legal protections would help restore our reputation abroad." No, it wouldn't. I mean that's like saying, well, if we're nicer to the people who want to KILL US, then the other people who want to KILL US will like us more. Does that make any sense to you? Do you think Osama [bin Laden] is gonna be more favorably disposed to the U.S. if we give the Guantànamo people lawyers?
E.D. HILL (co-host): No, of course not.
O'REILLY: I mean, but this is what they're saying. It is just -- you just sit there, you go, "They'll never get it until they grab Michael Kinsley out of his little house and they cut his head off." And maybe when the blade sinks in, he'll go, "Perhaps O'Reilly was right."
Full story, again, for similar reasons as stated in the previous story: http://mediamatters.org/items/200505190003
Hey, at least he wasn't offering to do the cutting himself like Big Man Beck probably would have done. Still, I find it interesting that O'Reilly uses Kinsley as the example to state his case. Why Kinsley? He used to be good when he was on Crossfire with Pat Buchanan, but he seems to have burnt out and has all but disappeared from the scene.
Speaking of Buchanan, I wonder why O'Reilly didn't use HIS name as an example? Maybe it's because, as a staunch conservative, Pat has too much moxie to ever be taken hostage by Al Queda. Hell he'd probably "put a size ten cordovan where it would do some good" to the first terrorist stupid enough to try to mess with him. Just as he did to a police officer when he protested having been pulled over in his car as a young man, a story he proudly recounted in one of his books. Ah, law and order, extremist right-wing style! What it lacks in effectiveness is compensated for by its intricate subtlety...
Condi Buys Kuwaiti Bullshit About Women Suffrage
A mere 14 years after we "liberated" Kuwait during Operation Desert Storm, the Kuwaiti government granted women in their country the right to vote in elections. Secretary of State Condi Sleazy Rice congratulated the Kuwaitis on such a quick move into the 20th century. Of course, most of the rest of the world resides in the 21st, despite the best efforts of the Bush Administration to bring it back to the 13th. But then again, she wasn't about to antagonize an important Bush family business partner over a little thing like giving women the same political rights as men. Anyway, I proudly offer the following Yahoo News excerpt:
WASHINGTON - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice congratulated Kuwait on Thursday for granting women the right to vote and said the conservative state can be a political model for the Middle East.
Kuwait's parliament extended political rights to Kuwaiti women Monday, but religious fundamentalists who opposed women's suffrage succeeded in attaching a clause requiring future female politicians and voters to abide by Islamic law.
It was not clear whether that meant a strict dress code or just separate polling stations and election campaigns.
"It is a historic decision. It is a courageous decision," Rice said after a meeting with Kuwaiti Foreign Minister Sheik Mohammed Al Sabah. "With the empowerment of women, societies are complete. And now as Kuwait moves toward other reforms, it will do so with its entire population active in that process."
Al Sabah noted that it took six years to get the suffrage bill through Parliament. The change will take effect with the 2007 parliamentary elections.
So congratulations to the Kuwaiti parliament for acknowledging the fact that women are people too. But wait, there is always someone to rain on the parade:
Islamic conservatives called the law a "bombshell" and accused the government of bowing to foreign pressure. They believe women's participation in politics contradicts Islam's teachings and complain it will allow women to mix freely with men.
Full story: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_kuwait
Hmmm, maybe this "democratization " of the Middle East isn't the grand idea the Bush Administration claims it is. After all, if a non-hostile Arab - Muslim country takes 14 years after the consensus shows that they've been "converted" to democracy, what is the over-under on Iraq doing likewise? 50 years? 100? 200? Given the fact that the American colonies declared their independence from England in 1776, and women were given the right to vote in 1920, a mere 144 years later, maybe we shouldn't hold our collective breath...