Cynical Nation

Did you see what Sheik Feiz Mohammed had to say? Children make great canon fodder. Seriously. Worse yet? He's the head of the Global Islamic Youth Center in the western suburbs of Sydney.

Islam: What a religion.
Arabs: What a culture.

Assbackwards in all respects, violence-prone, vengeful...such a pretty people.

More reasons why Islam is incompatible with the West.

Sadly, I'm becoming more and more certain that it will probably take another major attack, perhaps something as cataclysmic as that 24 premise for America to finally and completely understand and accept that.

Heard this gem from Bill O'Reilly, about Rosie O'Donnell's latest demented statement that "We really don't have to fear the terrorists as they're mothers and fathers too."

O'Reilly noted that "Ms O'Donnell would be one of the first targets of a Muslim attack on ABC studios, noting that "they'd put a bullet in your (Rosie's) head in about ten seconds," adding, "They're not looking out for you, Rosie."

Well, I'm not looking out for the Rosie's of America either.

Still, I think O'Reilly's wrong on this on a couple of relatively minor points, for one thing, they'd never "put a bullet in her head," that's not their style, they'd saw it off.

And for another, I don't think that would be such a bad thing, even, perhaps especially from the vantage of "The View" - just think of the ratings!

Plus, maybe that high profile murder could be used a rallying cry, sort of like South Park's, "You killed Rosie! You bastards!!!"

I don't especially care for irrational arguments, and JMK, you have posted the irrational arguments of both sides. I don't meant to go all ad hominem on you, but as soon as you mention O'Reilly, the man who thinks that the child victim of a kidnapping and sexual abuse bears the blame for his own kidnapping and abuse, you lose me. O'Donnel gets you no better in any context. She should stick to starting fights with that arbiter of ethics and morality, Donald Trump.

The notion of quoting O'Reilly on O'Donnel as if either were pertinent to the discussion of anything except self-promoting boneheads whose only interest is attracting an increasingly dumber audience (the IQ drops as you watch) is a little, how shall I put it, meshugah. When I see O'Reilly, I realize that television is good for nothing so much as selling soap (anyone with any sense uses copious amounts of soap to wash their brains out after watching O'Reilly) and when I see O'Donnell I think much the same thing, except that I realize, simultaneously, that she is very bad for ipecac sales. Why by the emetic when you can watch her and puke for free?

If you think that quoting the lunatic fringe regarding the lunatic fringe is going to help, knock yourself out. It's a free country (though a moderated web log).

By the way, 24 probably is appealing to the 14 year old boy in many, but I find it stultifyingly dull. I've seen it all before (and done better in many cases--True Lies, anyone?), and I just can't get excited about watching the same old same old. It's just another cops show, circa the 1970s, with all the bombs and split-second survivials/killings/risks, etc. Cop shows, doctor shows, lawyer shows (which are actually just cop shows). Yawn. TV is indeed very liberal, though the recycling comes in the form of plots and premises. (Now Heroes and Lost, those are a couple of different shows, and I really enjoy those buggers).

As far as the main thrust of the posting is concerned, somebody has to be the bad guy in these god-awful cop shows. I can see how shows like 24 detract from the dialogue and serve to demonize this group or that, but that's what cop shows and mass media are like. You take the characteristics out of the bad guys, they get pretty dull. "Generic Bad Guy Man" isn't very interesting.

I'm just glad they aren't demonizing Jews or technical writers. Well, not today, anyway.

Oh, and don't get me wrong: I love shows that appeal to the 14 year old boy in me. I'm glad to rediscover that side of myself, being more years past 14 than I like to think about. "Heroes" (the season premiere was last night) appeals to my inner child. I would love to be Hiro. That guy is great and one of my all-time favorite characters. I love his sunny disposition and his friendship with the other guy. He isn't an innocent; he's just pleasant.

“mention O'Reilly, the man who thinks that the child victim of a kidnapping and sexual abuse bears the blame for his own kidnapping and abuse... (DBK)


I’ve followed O’Reilly on this child predator issue and he’s been consistently right (except on opposing the death penalty for child molesters) and every single critic of his has so far been wrong on every point, same with the Duke hoax, btw.

No one can simply read what Media Matters (one of the most disreputable groups on the Web – to date I haven’t seen them get a single quote they’ve challenge correct...What a track record!), says about O’Reilly and make “an informed decision.”

You HAVE TO “suck it up” and listen to the “great moderate” himself.

Hey! I’ve done it, just as I’ve listened to various denizens of the Left (Gore, Franken, Kucinich, Moore, etc) so that I could (1) quote them accurately and (2) make an honest assessment of what their views are.

In fact, O’Reilly is dangerous because he is so rational and convincing. I firmly believe that he’s successfully influenced much public opinion slightly to the Left!

But O’Reilly NEVER blamed Shawn Hornbeck for his own abduction.

His exact quote was, “Something’s wrong with this case. A kid is abducted and taken less than thirty miles from his home and being left alone without ever trying to get back home, is troubling. I don’t want to say anything more at this point, but there’s something wrong with this case.” (O’Reilly Factor 1/16/07)

I know you posted this before these new developments came out, but embarrassingly enough for you, O’Reilly seems right about his suspicions and you appear to be wrong.

As the New York Post reported yesterday (1/25/07), “The boy held in the crazed clutches of a kidnapper for 41/2 years (Shawn Hornbeck) helped his tormentor snatch a second youngster earlier this month, a bombshell report said yesterday.

“Shawn Hornbeck, 15, grabbed 13-year-old Ben Ownby on Jan. 8 from the side of a rural road near Ben's home outside St. Louis and forced him into the Nissan truck that kidnapper Michael Devlin used in the abduction, KMOV-TV reported, citing sources close to the investigation.”

Again, I can always tell a Liberal posing as a Moderate.

They tend to revile stealth Liberals like O’Reilly most of all, calling them “hard-right Conservatives,” when of course, O’Reilly is a down the middle moderate. He's about as moderate as you can get without being an out-and-out Liberal.

To be fair, some of those folks/critics are so far Left that the likes of O’Reilly must seem like “Conservatives” to them.

Now, I’m much further to the “Right” than O’Reilly and even I’m not a “hard-right Conservative,” nor at all “extreme” in my views, at least not when I compare them to the views of many of the folks I know in Wyoming and Montana (Crazy New York? Yes, but in that case NYC's the abberation, not me) – I’m to the “Right” of some in middle America, and to the “Left” of others (OK, few others).

But to anyone who’d consider O’Reilly a “Conservative,” yes, to that kind of dolt, I’m no doubt “an extremist,” and to those kooks who’d consider a moderate like O’Reilly part of some “lunatic fringe,” I can only figure my views must be so far around the bend for those kooks that they probably see mine as “rationally moderate.”

That often happens to the actual extreme Right & Left – self-avowed National Socialists, like Tom Metzger are, more often than not, in complete sympatico with most extreme Leftist conspiracy theorists and even with the likes of Farrakhan and the NOI.

I have a lot of problems with many of O’Reilly’s views (not on the Duke hoax, or the child predator issue) and most of all his often convincing delivery – he actually makes many detrimental moderate and somewhat Liberal views seem rational, when they're anything but.