December 2, 2003 by s.z.

And speaking of Mr."I Hate Al Franken SO MUCH!" O'Reilly, here's today's Bill O'Reilly Talking Points Memo The Talking Points Memo this evening concerns the growing war at home.  Tomorrow night, a group of Hollywood people will meet to devise strategies to unseat President Bush.  The confab was organized by the wife of Larry David, the creator of Seinfeld. Now this might seem insignificant on the surface, but it isn't.  Hollywood's very powerful in many ways.  And it has access to many more Americans than the actual politicians do. Here's how it works.  Actors and singer can get on programs like "Letterman" and "Leno" and say pretty much what they want to say. The bastards!  Saying pretty much whatever they want to say! What kind of a country would allow this kind of thing? Most Americans don't follow politics and form impressions based on hearsay and repetition.  If they only hear one thing, they tend to believe that thing.  And if a person like Oprah or Katie Couric seem sympathetic to a political point of view, that carries a lot of weight. Then I think we should require Oprah and Katie to stop being so sympathetic to the leftist point of view.  Otherwise, they just aren't being fair and balanced, like Bill is. An article in USA Today says that the left feels it has been too nice and is about to get meaner.  Wow.  That would make Rambo tremble.   I don't know about that -- Rambo did single-handedly blow up the entire nation of Afghanistan, so I doubt he'd be all a-scared of a belligerant-er Alan Colmes.  But meaner liberals would make BILL tremble.  Can you imagine an even MORE defamatory Al Franken?  What kind of stuff would he say?  Maybe remind Bill that he never apologized to the nation nor made good on his vow to never trust the Bush administration again when no evidence of WMDs were found?  Oh, and then he'd probably tell Bill to shut up, shut up!  Wow, it makes me go pale just to think about it. As we pointed out, the DNC has bought thousands of copies of the left wing's smear books as well as Mrs. Clinton's effort. For those of you who are new to Bill's world, "smear book" = Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them.  Oh, and Bill has to sell more books by the end of the year than Hillary does, or Santa Claus is cancelling Christmas and God is going to destroy the Earth in a fit of pique.  So, Bill is naturally peeved that the evil DNC would be helping Bill's sworn enemies by buying their books. Combine the DNC's alliance with the Hollywood left, add a boat load of billionaire extremist George Soros, and you have a potent strategy designed to turn America into a far different place than it is now. Yes, I realize that it might seem odd that Bill was giving a vote of confidence to the DNC/Hollywood Left/George Soros plan to change the America, but to Bill, that's a BAD thing. A CBS News poll shows that only 20 percent of Americans identify themselves as liberals, but that group is gathering power and money fast.  And you should know about it.  So you can join up now!  Want more money and power?  Sure, we all do!  Then sign up today to become a liberal, the group that is quickly gathering wealth and influence, and all the really hot chicks. And that's The Memo...  Thanks, Bill.  But now I have a question: when I was sick with the killer flu that developed into bronchitis, who was looking out for me?  My mother brought me juice, soup, and cough drops.  My friend called to check on me.  Ivan and Poetisa posted get will wishes.  That was about it.  So, Bill, WHERE THE HELL WERE YOU?  And now for The Most Ridiculous Item of the Day And now an update on the war in the store.  Who's Looking Out For You? leaps back to the number two position on The New York Times bestseller list next Sunday. Behind Dude, Where's My Country?, by Michael Moore, a liberal tome if I ever heard of one.  But that doesn't matter, because Bill is ahead of Lying Liars for the first time in weeks, proving that if this were the Old West, Bill would indeed plug Al Franken in a shoot-out at high noon at the OK Corral.   Unless his Mommy wouldn't let him, of course. Of course, we're doing this the old-fashioned way.  Regular folks are actually buying the book, not the DNC and other ideological organizations.  You mean "A National Party No More, by Zell Miller (+)" didn't make the list the old-fashioned way???  That Zell is such a slut!  So, what ideological organization is buying his book, do you think?  Anyway, Bill, I'm glad to hear that the people who buy your book are regular.  Personally, I prefer prune juice, but whatever works to clean out the colon is good, I guess. Our goal is to recapture the number one spot and surpass Hillary Clinton's book sales.  We are closing in on that goal, and it's all thanks to you. Because if Hillary sells more books than Bill, then Sauron will use the one-ring to rule the earth forever!  Just keep that in mind when you're book shopping. 10:04:37 PM

Better Health Through Lunacy And speaking of Newsmax, check out Washing the Blog's coverage of the best Medical Ads of the conservative demi-news world!  Washing does a fine job with perhaps my favorite wacko ad of all time, the "Is Your Doctor Turning You Into Hillary?" one. Oh, and if you want to scare the children by showing them what happens to bullies, go here: Bill O'Blotchy 9:12:30 PM

Wow, it seems like all of blogdom is off-line right now.  This is my chance to RULE THE WORLD!  Well, actually I wanted to link to some very good pieces from TBOGG and Atrios that I read earlier, but now I can't.  But if the blogs are back up now, I'm sure they have some new creamy goodness to read when you visit them. But gladly, you can visit Sadly, No right now and learn about "fair and balanced" Bush.  It does make you wonder what he's listening too when Condi is telling him about intelligence. Oh, and I can use this opportunity to share with you this urgent appeal I got from Newsmax (along with 2 other spam emails today, and 3 pop-ups when I opened this alert): Mel Gibson Needs Your Vote NewsMax.com, one of America's leading online news services, is conducting an urgent national online poll. NewsMax will provide the results of this poll to major media, Congress, the President, and key members of the administration. Additionally, NewsMax's results will be shared with every major radio talk show host in America. NewsMax reports have been cited by national major media, including Fox News, CNN and MSNBC. Because if there's one thing the President and Congress are focused on right now, it's Mel Gibson.  Mel Gibson's upcoming movie "The Passion of the Christ" – has come under fierce criticism. The movie depicts the last hours of Jesus' life and his crucifixion. Critics say the film is too real and shows the brutality of the death. Other critics say because the film too closely mirrors the Gospel accounts, it is anti-Semitic. Some Jewish leaders have stated Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite. Others say the film should not be shown in movie theatres. Efforts are underway to block the movie's distribution to the public. And even others have said that the film is not commercially viable, and that genning up a big "Jews and secularists are trying to stop you from seeing this movie" controversy is the only way Mel is going to get anybody into the theaters come Easter.    The media and Mel Gibson need to know your opinion. Well, I can't say I'm not flatterered.  I've long thought that Mel and the media could benefit greatly from knowing what I think, but I was beginning to lose hope that they would ever ask. 1) Do you support Mel Gibson in producing "The Passion of Christ"?                 I support Mel I don't support Mel I feel pretty much the same way about it as I do about most movie productions: I don't really care one way or the other.  I mean, this is America and I think that anybody (even Coleman Francis) should be allowed to pursue his or her dream of making movies.  But they just shouldn't expect ME to support them.  I have enough on my plate, suporting my cats and that imaginary daughter I picked up from Maggie Gallagher.  And when was the last time movie people supported me in MY efforts to make a movie in a dead language? So, my answer for question #1 has to be: NA. 2) Do you believe Mel Gibson is an anti-Semite? Anti-Semite Not an anti-Semite                 Gee, this is a toughie.  While Mel's father is reportedly a big-time Holocaust denier, and Mel's church is said to have retained all the cherished anti-Semitism of the good old days, I know of nothing that Mel has done which would make me think he's anti-Semitic.  But then, I've never hung out with him when he was opening up his heart about Jewish people.  See, I've been around long enough to know that even though Mel seemed so nice on that Simpsons ep, that could just be acting (and animation).  So, he COULD be the biggest anti-Semite since Ann Coulter, for all I know.  But still, this is America, and I'm going to have to go with "innocent until proven guilty" and say he's not an anti-Semite. 3) Should Mel Gibson have portrayed Jesus' death so accurately? Should have Should not have     Hmm, I haven't seen the movie, so I don't know how Mel portrayed Jesus's death.  And I wasn't there when Christ was cruxified, so I really couldn't comment on the movie's accuracy.  Another NA.             4)  Do you believe Gibsons' "Passion of Christ" should be shown in theaters? Yes, it should be shown No, it should not be shown On the one hand, theaters can offer a great movie-watching experience, since you have that large screen and a good sound system, plus the added excitement that comes with seeing a film with an appreciative crowd.  But then again, if you get a bunch of crying children and people with cell phones in the audience, you can end up so aggravated that you miss most of the movie while plotting hideous acts of vengeance.  So, I have to say that if movie theaters want to show it, then it should be shown in theaters, but only if the AC isn't on full blast in the middle of winter, and only if there's a real projectionist on hand to focus it properly.  But since this is America, no theaters should be forced to show it if they don't want to, unless it's Sunday and it's their Mom who is making them do it, and it's so that they'll have enough religious knowledge that they can make their own choices about what movies to show when they grow up. 5)  Will you go to see this movie if it is in your local movie theater?                 Yes, I would like to see it No, I would not see it  My local movie theater leaves the AC on in winter, and doesn't remove crying babies or people with cell phones, so no, I don't want to see Mel's movie there.  But then, I don't particularly want to see it anywhere.  I'm just not that into Aramaic, and I read the book so I know how it ends anyway.  Sorry, Mel. Anyway, I hope that my answers have helped Congress, the President, Mel, and the media, and they will use my words for good, and not for evil. 5:04:39 AM

Short Attention Span Townhall As Read by Rush, Sean, and Bennie Okay, I have to admit that I got a bit bored reading today's Town Hall columns.  They have that, "Been there, did that, got the 'Bush for Jesus in 2004' T-shirt" feel to them.  But then I accidentally clicked on the "editor's appeal for money" page, and learned that some of the top names in evil swear by Townhall: What They're Saying Townhall.com is "must reading" for conservatives who want to make a difference. One of the best compendium sites available.” Rush Limbaugh "We go through [Townhall.com] as part of Sean's show prep every day. You do it right - straight, reality based commentary in an age where it is more rare than it should be." James Grisham - Producer, Sean Hannity Radio Show.  They keep the conservative movement pulsating with fresh ideas and time-tested truths." Ben Shapiro, columnist And if anybody would know about pulsing, throbbing, thrusting movements, it would be young Ben.  So, I recapped the articles for today.  But, except for Joel's, they're really SHORT recaps, 'cause that's all they deserve.  Well, the one about the lady with three kidneys was cool, but the last two about social security reform were kind of dry, lacking even the Victoria's Secret models of Cal Thomas's piece.  Joel Mowbray So, the Saudis get special treatment?  Don't blame Bush, blame the State Department (the President it no match for the mighty power of a GS-15 career bureaucrat). While many critics of the repressive Saudi regime like to target President Bush and his oil ties as the culprit of the overly cozy relationship, the roots actually go much deeper.  It’s the small favors that are done every day—decisions made far below the President’s pay grade—that truly define the relationship. Though it cannot be said that U.S. diplomats do favors for the Saudis in the hopes of lucrative payoffs later on, the Saudis reward those officials who were kind to them while working for the State Department.  Scads of former State Department officials now either work directly for the Saudis or for organizations that take Saudi petrodollars.  Though it cannot be said, Joel will say it anyway.  He's just that kind of guy.  You know, the kind who thinks it's cool for Pat Robertson to talk about nuking goverment buildings.  David Limbaugh All about that top-rated CBS comedy, "Everybody Hates Bush."  And speaking of "high moral purpose" and "troop morale," maybe these high-minded Democratic stalwarts can collaborate with the Hollywood activists planning a "Hate Bush" gathering this week. General Clark should be especially welcome there, based on reports that he's recently turned to Hollywood for advice and funding.  Dennis Prager The fact that colleges are secular, Marxist, Feminist-preaching, Evolution-teaching, dens of iniquity helps restore Dennis's faith. Most people come to believe in God through what I call the front door of faith. Something leads them to believe in God. Since that day at Columbia, however, I regularly renew my faith through the back door -- I see the confusion and nihilism that godless ideas produce and my faith is restored. The consequences of secularism have been at least as powerful a force for faith in my life as religion.  Thomas Sowell We should let people sell their kidneys if they want to.  Damned liberal nanny state! I happen to know a lady who was born with three kidneys -- and in poverty. Do you think she would have minded parting with a spare kidney, in order to have a better life for herself and her children?  Bruce Bartlett You know what would be really cool?  If the Libertarians could somehow replace the Democrats, like how the Republicans replaced the Whigs because of slavery. I see no issue of similar magnitude on the horizon that could cause the kind of national cleavage that might open the way for one of the major parties to self-destruct. The only issue I observe that even comes close would be a generational divide between the elderly, who are the recipients of massive and growing income transfers, and the young who will pay exorbitant taxes to finance those transfers.    Matt Towery Everybody was up in arms about that Reagan TV miniseries, but it was just a trashy TV show that no right-minded kids would have watched anyway.  What we should be censoring is text books, which "depict the Reagan administration as responsible for a period of unbridled greed and class warfare. " Don't get me wrong; I was just as outraged as anyone at last week's TV debacle. It portrayed Nancy Reagan as a wicked witch so omnipresent in her control of the White House as to make Hillary Clinton look like a shrinking violet. Cal Thomas Bah, humbug! Why participate any longer in this charade where the focal point of worship has shifted from a babe in a manger to a babe in the Victoria's Secret window?  Rich Lowry A whole column about Al Sharpton, our next President. Sharpton and Jackson are dueling over who will be the nation's best-paid race hustler, a lucrative occupation.   Phyllis Schlafly See Pandagon for a full and bitingly funny discussion of this column. . . .to abolish marriage requirements to make the nation comfortable for unrestricted sex.  Doug Bandow Yummy chocolate eclair backbones!  Oh, and quit wasting tax-payer money on drugs for the elderly! That was possible only if the Republican leadership and President George W. Bush had chocolate eclairs as backbones.  Jack Kemp If we let everybody invest their social security deductions, we'd live in a world of universal wealth.   . . .individual wealth creation and ownership . . . Peter Ferrara If we let everybody invest their social security deductions, we'd live in a world of universal wealth.   . . .sharply increases national wealth, income and economic growth.    And that's Town Hall for today.  Keep listening to Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh for more highlights from columns by the greatest minds of our generation. 3:35:12 AM

Bush as Tough-Guy-in-Chief Charles Krauthammer has a new piece that explains Why bush Stays Away (it's only available on AOL right now, but I imagine it will be in Time soon).  In it, Charles claims that Bush doesn't attend the funerals of soldiers killed in Iraq because if he attended one, he'd have to attend them all, and heck, they're dying every day, and so he wouldn't have time to do anything else. But more importantly, Bush can't show that he cares that our people are dying, or the terrorists win: In the midst of an ongoing war, a guerrilla war, a war that will be won and lost as a contest of wills, the Commander in Chief — despite what he feels in his heart — must not permit himself to show that he bleeds.  He is required to show, yes, a certain callousness. He must appear that way to the insurgents, who will otherwise be encouraged to think their strategy is succeeding and therefore have yet more incentive to keep killing Americans until it does.  And he must appear that way to ordinary Iraqis, who will not help us in this fight unless they are sure that the pain of our losses will not drive us out and leave them to the tender mercies of the Saddamites. So, this war is a contest of wills between Bush and the evil doers, who only respect callousness.  And if our President seems to care that our people are dying, the ordinary Iraqis won't help us, because real men don't attend funerals.  Got it. Of course this President cares. Bush has met privately with families and has written a letter to every one.  And during his Thanksgiving Day address to the troops in Baghdad, he paid tribute to their fallen comrades.  In the middle of a war, that is how the Commander in Chief can best honor the dead — in the context not of mourning but of resolve; with acknowledgment of loss, but within a larger demonstration of defiance. Well, he has SIGNED letters to every family.  But I'm sure that the staff members who actually address, write, and mail the letters care too. And personally, I think defiance (as in, "So, evil doers, you have killed more of my men.  But it will avail you nothing, for I have thousands more, and will sacrifice them all, if needs be, to demonstrate that I am tougher than you.") comes across as immature rather than intimidating.  (But I admit I am not up on macho fighting strategy.)  Bush's critics charge he is avoiding any public identification with the returning dead so as not to jeopardize his re-election. It is a scurrilous charge, and demonstrably false.  Do the following thought experiment: imagine the election is not a year from now but was held a week ago. The President is re-elected. He is a lame duck and will never run for office again.  Is there any doubt that he would continue precisely the same policy of not making public shows of grief? No doubt whatsoever. Okay, I'm imagining.  We had the election last week.  Bush won. (Must ignore overwhelming desire to get into bed and not crawl out for your more years.)  Anyway, he's a lame duck.  Can't be President again, although he will do whatever he can to ensure the Republican candidate (Arnold Schwarzenegger?  Sean Hannity?  Brother Jeb?) wins the White House in, um, 2007, and that his party continues to rule Congress.  Anyway, would Bush continue to fail to acknowledge the deaths of soldiers?  Yeah, probably he would continue this policy.  Mostly because having to take responsibility for anything that goes wrong (and as President, he is in some measure responsible for these deaths, even if the invasion of Iraq WAS the right thing to do, which increasingly seems not to be the case) is not in character for him.  So, maybe distancing himself from these dead soldiers in not primarily about reelection.  But it's still a sad indictment on his leadership, IMHO.  But again, I'm not a macho warrior like Charles, and so probably just don't understand these manly war strategies. 1:05:47 AM