Monday, November 14, 2005

O'Reilly is such an ass

Perhaps this makes me a member of Bill O'Reilly's enemies list, but wow is that guy a dipshit.

First, he cuts off the real nasty bits of his comments about San Francisco. On his show, he played the part in italics, but cut the real shitty part in bold.
Hey, you know, if you want to ban military recruiting, fine, but I'm not going to give you another nickel of federal money. You know, if I'm the president of the United States, I walk right into Union Square, I set up my little presidential podium, and I say, "Listen, citizens of San Francisco, if you vote against military recruiting, you're not going to get another nickel in federal funds. Fine. You want to be your own country? Go right ahead.

And if Al Qaeda comes in here and blows you up, we're not going to do anything about it. We're going to say, look, every other place in America is off limits to you, except San Francisco. You want to blow up the Coit Tower? Go ahead.
Isn't that wonderful? O'Reilly called it a "satirical riff." (At first O'Reilly said he "absolutely" stood behind his statement and argued it wasn't even controversial.) He said on The O'Reilly Factor tonight that he couldn't air the whole thing because it's "five minutes long," but, as you can clearly see on his own site, it's only one minute, nine seconds long. He cut the most important, nastiest 30 seconds when, honestly, he should have played at least those 30 seconds. They're what pissed people off.

Perhaps he left out the bold part because, as he said in discussing Ward Churchill January 28th of this year, he "can't subject (his) audience to irresponsible ravings" like the idea that people you disagree with "deserve" their deaths at the hands of terrorists. He's right. That's nuts.

Just like it was nuts when Bill once again pointed out that Ward Churchill was wrong and his actions were inexcusable on February 23:
Hitler and his crew killed millions of civilians and justified it. Churchill believes American civilians are legitimate military targets. There's no question Churchill is echoing the Nazi philosophy...

I've studied his rhetoric, I've studied his background. He justified the Oklahoma City bombing. He hates America. And I don't think you're ever going to get him to stop hating America. Now he'll want to rationalize what he said with you. He'll try to, you know, explain it, but to me...
Yeah. Let's just see Churchill try to pass that off as a "satirical riff."

It's odd, though, that O'Reilly has had so many guests on and allowed them to talk solo about the "liberal indoctrination" occurring on America's campuses by "far-left fanatic" teachers. Why doesn't he see that some parents don't want recruiters talking to their children in a school environment?

Look. A good friend of mine is a Guard recruiter. He's good at it and, yes, he's an honest, Christian guy who lays it all out on the line. He's the guy who brought me into the Guard after my time in the Navy. He admits, though, that he doesn't like to talk to students with other people around. In other words, he's a salesman who doesn't want, say, someone's parents sitting at their kids shoulder like a cartoon angel (or devil) saying "Don't do it."

O'Reilly's right in saying that the military is an "all-volunteer force." I say, then, that kids should be allowed to go down to the recruiter's office and sign up if they want. If the parents want recruiters to stay out of schools, it's their right as citizens in a democracy to pass legislation that keeps them out. Remember, there's all kinds of advertising banned in and near schools. This is just another.


Blogger Patrick said...

Isn't one of the things being lost in the shuffle is that the recruiters were being banned because the military discriminates against gay people?

9:04 AM  
Blogger Nitpicker said...

Is it really? I honestly had no idea that that was part of the drive.

9:16 AM  
Blogger Patrick said...

Hrm, I went looking and I don't see much to support my idea. I do know that it has been an issue on many college campuses though and I guess I just figured that would be one of the reasons for something like this being on the ballot in SF>

I was wrong though.

10:12 AM  
Blogger Jim said...

FWIW, I know that in the early 90's MIT had an internal committee that wrestled with the problem that its ROTC program violated the the part of the school's anti-discrimination policy concerning gays.

The school's policy on ROTC and gays is summed up as

"In 1996, our faculty after serious consideration voted to continue to allow ROTC to exist on our campus, despite this violation of our own policies. This vote was taken in recognition of the importance of service leadership training, but was contingent upon four expectations:"

"* That the MIT administration would act affirmatively to seek change and to support efforts to change Defense Department policy."

"* That the administration would cooperate with other institutions to advocate and effect change."

"* That the MIT administration would reinsure any students whose scholarships are withdrawn because they are openly gay."

"* That the administration will work to improve the climate for LBGT faculty, staff, and students on our campus" [1]

So, if a gay ROTC student looses ROTC funding because they are gay, MIT will "ensure that students, who are involuntarily separated from the ROTC because they are gay or lesbian, [do] not suffer financial consequences associated with a loss of the military scholarship." [2]

If you are interested, go the MIT's site ( and use their Google saerch window at the bottom of the page for "ROTC gay policy"


[1] (


4:46 AM  
Blogger Mr. Ed said...

It never ceases to amaze me about the whole ROTC thing that people think that the military sets the policy.

No, congress sets the policy (as it should, military under civilian rule and all that) and congress is to blame to for this backward thinking.

Mr. Ed

2:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home