Letterman loses it
January 4, 2006 8:20 AM   Subscribe

“I Have The Feeling About 60% Of What You Say Is Crap.” David Letterman, the usually apolitical host who's generally much more concerned with making his guests look good, loses it when guest Bill O'Reilly takes Cindy Sheehan to task on his show. You may remember O'Reilly having a similarly awkward encounter with Jon Stewart earlier this year.
posted by mkultra (377 comments total)
 
(Warning: Real Media link, sorry)
posted by mkultra at 8:21 AM on January 4, 2006


Transcript anybody?
posted by furtive at 8:29 AM on January 4, 2006


This link may be better.
posted by Optamystic at 8:30 AM on January 4, 2006


Partial transcript.
posted by psmealey at 8:31 AM on January 4, 2006


sorry, must be a low bw site. Here's some of it posted in line:

Bill O’Reilly: “I think that the Iraq thing has been full of unintended consequences and it’s a vital thing for the country and it's brutal, it’s absolutely brutal. We should all take it very seriously. This simplistic stuff about hating Bush or he lied and all this stuff, does the country no good at all. We've got to win this thing. You have to win it. And even though it's a screw-up, giant, massive, all right, right now, for everybody's protection, it's best for the world to have a democracy in that country functioning and friendly to the West, is it not?”

David Letterman: “Yes, absolutely.”

O’Reilly: “Okay, so let's stop with the lying and the this and the that and the undermining and let's get him. That is putting us all in danger. So our philosophy is we call it as we see it. Sometimes you agree, sometimes you don't. Robust debate is good. But we believe that the United States, particularly the military, are doing a noble thing, a noble thing. The soldiers and Marines are noble. They're not terrorists. And when people call them that, like Cindy Sheehan called the insurgents 'freedom fighters,’ we don't like that. It is a vitally important time in American history. And we should all take it very seriously. Be very careful with what we say.”

Letterman: “Well, and you should be very careful with what you say also.” [audience applause]

O’Reilly: “Give me an example.”

Letterman: “How can you possibly take exception with the motivation and the position of someone like Cindy Sheehan?”

O’Reilly: “Because I think she’s run by far-left elements in this country. I feel bad for the woman.”

Letterman: “Have you lost family members in armed conflict?”

O’Reilly: “No, I have not.”

Letterman: “Well, then you can hardly speak for her, can you?” [applause]

O’Reilly: “I’m not speaking for her. Let me ask you this question.”

Letterman, referring back to O’Reilly’s examples of a war on Christmas: “Let’s go back to your little red and green stories.”

O’Reilly: “This is important, this is important. Cindy Sheehan lost a son, a professional soldier in Iraq, correct? She has a right to grieve any way she wants, she has a right to say whatever she wants. When she says to the public that the insurgents and terrorists are 'freedom fighters,’ how do you think, David Letterman, that makes people who lost loved ones, by these people blowing the Hell out of them, how do you think they feel, waht about their feelings, sir?”

Letterman: “What about, why are we there in the first place? [applause] The President himself, less than a month ago said we are there because of a mistake made in intelligence. Well, whose intelligence? It was just somebody just get off a bus and handed it to him?”

Bill O’Reilly: “No.”

Letterman: “No, it was the intelligence gathered by his administration.”

O’Reilly: “By the CIA.”

Letterman: “Yeah, so why are we there in the first place? I agree to you, with you that we have to support the troops. They are there, they are the best and the brightest of this country. [audience applause] There’s no doubt about that. And I also agree that now we’re in it it’s going to take a long, long time. People who expect it’s going to be solved and wrapped up in a couple of years, unrealistic, it’s not going to happen. However, however, that does not eliminate the legitimate speculation and concern and questioning of ‘Why the Hell are we there to begin with?’”

O’Reilly: “If you want to question that, and then revamp an intelligence agency that’s obviously flawed, the CIA, okay. But remember, MI-6 in Britain said the same thing. Putin’s people in Russia said the same thing, and so did Mubarak’s intelligence agency in Egypt.”

Letterman: “Well then that makes it all right?”

O’Reilly: “No it doesn’t make it right.”

Letterman: “That intelligence agencies across the board makes it alright that we’re there?”

O’Reilly: “It doesn’t make it right.”

Letterman: “See, I’m very concerned about people like yourself who don’t have nothing but endless sympathy for a woman like Cindy Sheehan. Honest to Christ.” [audience applause]

O’Reilly: “No, I’m sorry.”

Letterman: “Honest to Christ.”

“O’Reilly: “No way. [waits for applause to die down] No way you’re going to get me, no way that a terrorist who blows up women and children.”

Letterman: “Do you have children?”

O’Reilly: “Yes I do. I have a son the same age as yours. No way a terrorist who blows up women and children is going to be called a ‘freedom fighter’ on my program.” [mild audience applause]

Letterman: “I’m not smart enough to debate you point to point on this, but I have the feeling, I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap. [audience laughter] But I don’t know that for a fact. [more audience applause]

Paul Shafer: “60 percent.”

Letterman: “60 percent. I'm just spit-balling here.”

O’Reilly: “Listen, I respect your opinion. You should respect mine.”

Letterman: “Well, ah, I, okay. But I think you’re-”

O’Reilly: “Our analysis is based on the best evidence we can get.”

Letterman: “Yeah, but I think there’s something, this fair and balanced. I'm not sure that it's, I don't think that you represent an objective viewpoint.”

O’Reilly: “Well, you’re going to have to give me an example if you're going to make those claims.”

Letterman: “Well I don’t watch your show so that would be impossible.”

O’Reilly: “Then why would you come to that conclusion if you don't watch the program?”

Letterman: “Because of things that I’ve read, things that I know.”

O’Reilly: “Oh come on, you're going to take things that you've read. You know what say about you? Come on. Watch it for a couple, look, watch it for a half hour. You'll get addicted. You'll be a Factor fan, we'll send you a hat.”

Letterman: “You’ll send me a hat. Well, send Cindy Sheehan a hat”

O’Reilly: “I’ll be happy to.”
posted by psmealey at 8:34 AM on January 4, 2006


Awesome.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:36 AM on January 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


"Letterman loses it"?

Yeah, because O'Reilly's perfectly sane. Perfectly sane.

O'Reilly's bullshit about not calling out the current administration on being underhanded is just that: bullshit. Not questioning the faults of your leaders leads only to shitty leadership.

The people have the government they deserve and demand.
posted by Mikey-San at 8:37 AM on January 4, 2006


Rofl. Someone defended Sheehan.
posted by dios at 8:37 AM on January 4, 2006


The site's slow, psmealey, because the posters over there are frothing themselves into a frenzy so as to be the first on their block on the "Letterman Is A Dumb Liberal Shill Lol" backlash bandwagon.
posted by Spatch at 8:38 AM on January 4, 2006


Letterman praises the hypothetical apolitical Cindy Sheehan, O'Reilly pretends to criticize the real Cindy Sheehan but is really using her as a strawman for all critics of the war, blah blah fucking blah
posted by rxrfrx at 8:40 AM on January 4, 2006


Yeah, I noticed that, Spatch. I particularly enjoyed the asshole with the "fight terrorism at home: defeat a liberal" sig. Nice, huh? That more or less says it all.
posted by psmealey at 8:41 AM on January 4, 2006


I'm not sure whose opinion I value least - O'Reilly's, Letterman's, or Sheehan's.
posted by loquax at 8:41 AM on January 4, 2006


loquax sums it up perfectly.
posted by trey at 8:42 AM on January 4, 2006


...makes me wish fondly for the "is is" days of yore... or even the iran-contra-north days of yore-yore...
posted by ewkpates at 8:44 AM on January 4, 2006


You know my DVR gave me a choice last night, and I decided to watch the Orange Bowl and tape another show, thinking the Letterman piece would be fluff. I hate myself.
posted by geoff. at 8:44 AM on January 4, 2006


I'm not sure whose opinion I value least - O'Reilly's, Letterman's, or Sheehan's.
posted by loquax at 10:41 AM CST on January 4


Good point. I'd go with Sheehan only because she is such an opportunistic bitch who would use her son for her own batshit crazy political purposes. There is negative value with her. (By the way, hasn't she been pretty much turned on by all but the real crazies?)

O'Reilly is on par with Letterman as far as people I would listen to for insight, which is down at 0, but at least neither of them are repulsive. They are just entertainers.
posted by dios at 8:47 AM on January 4, 2006


I'm surprised Letterman got that involved. He's been phoning it in for like 10 years now, I can't stand to watch him anymore.

Anyway, he was off by 40%.
posted by fungible at 8:47 AM on January 4, 2006


I love Dave.
posted by keswick at 8:48 AM on January 4, 2006


Holy hell. That's amazing.
posted by boo_radley at 8:48 AM on January 4, 2006


O'Reilly won the "debate" by more than 60 percent. Especially after Letterman admitted he doesn't watch O'Reilly's show, and thinks baby bombers=freedom fighters.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:50 AM on January 4, 2006


"He's been phoning it in for like 10 years now, I can't stand to watch him anymore."

Try since 1985. Or at least since he left NBC.
posted by ParisParamus at 8:51 AM on January 4, 2006


You better care about Letterman's opinion. Middle America loves him- he's achieved that unimpeachable "nice guy" status. You can attempt to downplay this with all the "blah blah"s you want, but this is a significant indication of mainstream America's growing impatience with Iraq, and even more, the spin.
posted by mkultra at 8:53 AM on January 4, 2006


Quote from the comments:

Why have O'Reilly as a guest if that's how you are going to treat him?

My Irony meter just crapped out.
posted by bitdamaged at 8:54 AM on January 4, 2006


Like the war on christmas, O'Reilly seems to be campaigning against a similarly imaginary foe. I've never heard anyone refer to Iraqis as freedom fighters, but O'Reilly acts like he's reading it in every newspaper, every day.

Has anyone ever called Iraqis "freedom fighters" on MetaFilter?
posted by mathowie at 8:54 AM on January 4, 2006


I'd go with Sheehan only because she is such an opportunistic bitch

How about if you weren't a misogynist? Who would you go with then?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:55 AM on January 4, 2006


ParisParamus, you are aware that American troops have killed approximately 30,000 civilians. I'm sure at least some of those who died were babies. Yet, I doubt Bill O'Reilly would have any qualms calling American troops freedom fighters. I don't think you need to watch O'Reilly's show to know he's a manipulative, exceptionalist and lying piece of shit.
posted by cloeburner at 8:56 AM on January 4, 2006


Speaking to O'Reilly is like speaking to a child a few bricks shy of a load. He calls calling out the President for legitimate reasons "simplistic."

Yet he cannot even make the simple distinction between legitimate criticism and "supporting the troops" dynamic. It's quite astoundinig.

He clearly comes to the table without any intent of being reasonable and objective.

As for insight. There isn't any. It's all obvious, and Letterman is the only one who is stating the obvious in this exchange.
posted by juiceCake at 8:57 AM on January 4, 2006


I'd go with Sheehan only because she is such an opportunistic bitch who would use her son for her own batshit crazy political purposes.

Dios - Opportunistic bitch? Really? Because she lost her son and decided to say something about it?

I think you owe her an apology.
posted by bshort at 8:57 AM on January 4, 2006


Letterman mentioned Sheehan without eviscerating her. That's not the same as defending her or praising her.
posted by Western Infidels at 8:57 AM on January 4, 2006


On second thought, perhaps I shouldn't have taken the bait. Count me out on this thread.
posted by cloeburner at 8:57 AM on January 4, 2006


I sort of began to glaze watching it, and then O'Reilly makes a reference to "M one 6".

You mean MI6, Bill? That's em-eye six?

Nitpicking, I know. And entertainer or not, I was glad Letterman said it to him. I just wish people other than entertainers who had some real clout would tell him he was full of crap.
posted by TeamBilly at 8:58 AM on January 4, 2006


How about if you weren't a misogynist? Who would you go with then?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 10:55 AM CST on January 4


I'd feel the same way for her if she was the dad of a dead solider doing the things she has been doing. Of course, if it was a man, would my use of the word bitch somehow cease to be misogynistic?
posted by dios at 8:59 AM on January 4, 2006


Good point. I'd go with Sheehan only because she is such an opportunistic bitch who would use her son for her own batshit crazy political purposes.

I HERD SHE DINT EVEN GIVE BIRTH TO HIM BUT STOLE HIM LIKE THE GYPSY BITCH SHE IS FROM SOME REAL AMERICANS (OR POSSIBLY OUR HEROIC ALLIES THE MARSH ARABS I FORGET). ALSO SHE LIKES TO DO BLOWIES ON OSSAMA. ITS TRUE I TELL YOU.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:00 AM on January 4, 2006


Hey guys! Over here!

I found dios and peepee!!

They're hiding in the O'Really Factor thread praising Falafel Bill the pervert and trashing Cindy Sheehan 'cause her son died defending freedom!!

How about that Abramoff dios and peepee? Whatcha think about it? Do we blame Cindy for that too? Were you getting reimbursement from that giant slush fund too? What will Bill say?
posted by nofundy at 9:01 AM on January 4, 2006


My god, would people stop paying attention to O'Reilly. The man's a boob. The only thing significant about this dumbass is that people pay any attention to him, including Leterman and Stewart (although especially in Stewart's case, it's idiots like O'Reilly that keeps TDS's ratings so high).
posted by mcstayinskool at 9:01 AM on January 4, 2006


. . . but baby bombers ARE freedom fighters.

In the parlance of our times we call it collateral damage.
We do it, they do it, even birdies in the trees do it. No matter how you slice it, babies will get bombed.

Its not so much a war on terror, as it is a war on babies.
Don't look at the rhetoric. Just look at the results.
It is obvious that both sides of the conflict simply hate babies.

IMHO David Letterman likes babies 60% more than O'Reilly.
that is all.

/snark
posted by isopraxis at 9:01 AM on January 4, 2006


I think it's a telling indication of the zeitgeist in this country, more than anything. I don't know that Letterman's any more qualified to speak to political issues than O'Reilly (although I suspect he's less full of crap) but for him to come out that strongly for a political position is kind of startling. Talk show hosts generally aren't going to stake out territory like that because they want to offend as few people as possible. Their livelihood depends on a broad audience. For Letterman to speak up like that, he's either really pissed off, or feels that enough of his audience is pissed off that he can say it safely. I'm guessing it's both.
posted by EarBucket at 9:02 AM on January 4, 2006


dios, opportunistic to be sure, but "bitch" is totally uncalled for.
posted by mathowie at 9:03 AM on January 4, 2006


Falafel Bill really told that Terry Gross off too, didn't he? What a strong brave guy he is!
posted by nofundy at 9:04 AM on January 4, 2006


only because she is such an opportunistic bitch who would use her son for her own batshit crazy political purposes.

i hope everybody remembers this comment the next time you and your apologists go on and on about how wrong it is and how oppressed you are when people launch personal attacks on you here at metafilter.
posted by lord_wolf at 9:04 AM on January 4, 2006




but for him to come out that strongly for a political position

But is it really a political position or a position of common sense, obviousness, and sound principles? I'm not so sure I see any politics here.
posted by juiceCake at 9:06 AM on January 4, 2006


dios, opportunistic to be sure, but "bitch" is totally uncalled for.
posted by mathowie at 11:03 AM CST on January 4


I vehemently disagree. Assuming you are speaking in general terms. If you are speaking in your capacity as Admin and want to get rid of all offensive names, then I would concur and look forward to a cleaning up of the message board.
posted by dios at 9:08 AM on January 4, 2006


...only because she is such an opportunistic bitch who would use her son for her own batshit crazy political purposes.

Nice. Really classy, dios.
posted by RakDaddy at 9:08 AM on January 4, 2006


Donahue did a far better job, with none of Dave's wimpy 'I'm just a guy who isn't very smart' dribbling, and without the home field advantage.
posted by George_Spiggott at 9:09 AM on January 4, 2006


"would my use of the word bitch"

just explain the need to use that word at all. does it make your argument stronger, does it impress your peers, does it make you sound more intelligent, does it make you feel like one of the big boys..

why use it at all...? What is your reasoning...
posted by HuronBob at 9:10 AM on January 4, 2006


Of course, if it was a man, would my use of the word bitch somehow cease to be misogynistic?

It depends. Would your use of the word imply more contempt than, say, "prick" because it's meant to somehow question his masculinity, or would it just be a gender-neutral example of a cheap content-free insult?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:10 AM on January 4, 2006


Paris:

O'Reilly won the "debate" by more than 60 percent. Especially after Letterman admitted he doesn't watch O'Reilly's show, and thinks baby bombers=freedom fighters.

actually, letterman did not say that he thinks "baby bombers" are freedom fighters. o'reilly said that sheehan thinks terrorists are freedom fighters. (the truth of that, i will not explore.) i'm not sure i can then accept your thesis that o'reilly won the debate by more than 60 percent.

i appreciate that letterman stood up to o'reilly. not many do, which is a shame, because i think o'reilly is a terrible bully. he's rather free with invective at the slightest disagreement between another's and his own opinion. truthfully, i'd always considered that tendancy of his evidence of the weakness of his character.
posted by moz at 9:10 AM on January 4, 2006


If you are speaking in your capacity as Admin and want to get rid of all offensive names, then I would concur and look forward to a cleaning up of the message board.

Manifestly not, o bitch flinger.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:11 AM on January 4, 2006


Almost everything one can hear about O'Reilly is

*he's opinionated (and who the hell isn't ? )
*he agrees to disagree in an contrarian way
*he looks after controversy , but prefer the ones in which he seems to be attacked and victimized
*he's totally loyal to his audience, meaning he knows his audience inside out , probably better then the audience know themselves.
*his primary audience is made of easily outraged, prurient, afraid and flag wrapped hypocrite moralistic people

I guess he learned from Howard Stern who learned from somebody else etc etc...the two are way way similar.
One could consider both O'Reilly and Stern as practical trolls, even if sometimes I think O'Reilly really believes what he says. It seems to me that O'Reilly particularly feeds on controversy and opinions that are objectionable to his target audience. Stern goes sex, celebrities pumping and weirdos most of the times, but it unusually articulate, brilliant and sensible at times.

What they both seem to avoid like plague is being exposed as impostors or being belittled and ridiculed in a particular way, expecially the ones that expose the weakness in their logic making them look like "fools" which is going to make them lose the much needed admiration from their loyal followers/paying audiences.

If you remember the way O'Reilly "lost it" to a young man that lost his father in 9/11, you'll see how easy is to derail him if you don't pay the slightest attention to his arguments (or if you can easily poke holes in the weak ones).
posted by elpapacito at 9:14 AM on January 4, 2006


Jesus dios you're an annoying twat. When did wanting an answer as to why her son was killed "batshit crazy"? How do you have one iota of right to criticize someone who lost a son regardless of how much you disagree with her "crazy" politics. How could anyone with a brain, conservative or liberal, consider O'Reilly anything other than a compete moron?

Do me a favor, read this then go back to masturbating over those Ann Coulter photos you keep under your mattress.
posted by jalexei at 9:14 AM on January 4, 2006


Let's pose a thought experiment here.

Let's say we had a woman who's son died in Iraq and decided to speak up about it. But not Cindy Sheenan. Let's just pretend, for the sake of argument, that Sheenan is horrible evil opportunistic corrupt awful malevolent.

But let's say, for argument's sake, we had someone who had the exact same situation regarding family, the military, Iraq, etc. And let's rewind the clock back to the moment when she discovered her son had died, and go from there.

Let's say, whatever Sheenan did wrong that the right says she did wrong, our example woman doesn't do.

The question I pose is, what does the woman do, and what is the meanstream media's reaction? What is the right-wing media's reaction? What do those things look like to us?

My aim here is to try to determine what the difference would be between the "best" way for such a woman to proceed, and what the current way is. If the ways are identical, then the critics of the president are correct in the way they handle this. If there's a difference, then the degree of that difference is the extent that the right is correct in villifying her, assuming that the best way decided on truly is best.

If the proper way to proceed is "Don't speak up," in your opinion, then what possible situation would have to occur in Iraq in order to make speaking up legitimate?
posted by JHarris at 9:14 AM on January 4, 2006


Donahue did a far better job

You're missing the point, I think. You'd expect that from Donahue, who's a known liberal. But to see it from Letterman, who's much more "entertainer" than "journalist", and who's generally thought of as slightly right-of-center, is surprising.
posted by mkultra at 9:15 AM on January 4, 2006


I've never heard anyone refer to Iraqis as freedom fighters

Apparently Sheehan has used the term...and referred to Hurricane Rita as "a little wind and a little rain." Ugh.
posted by Gator at 9:15 AM on January 4, 2006


Since US military has killed many more women and babies than the terrorists who we cannot refer to as freedom fighters, what are we supposed to call the US military?
posted by flarbuse at 9:16 AM on January 4, 2006


From watching the video clip, I'd like to know what this 'M-1-6' intelligence agency that we have in the UK is...
posted by robzster1977 at 9:20 AM on January 4, 2006


jalexei, annoying to be sure, but "twat" is totally uncalled for.
posted by Kwantsar at 9:20 AM on January 4, 2006


who's generally thought of as slightly right-of-center

I used to be a Letterman nut, and that's the first time I've seen that sentiment expressed.
posted by gsteff at 9:21 AM on January 4, 2006


Kwantsar - I think Dios has proven, time and time again, that he's worthy of that label.
posted by bshort at 9:22 AM on January 4, 2006


Letterman was a bit disappointing, He even copied O'reilly's shtick with the 'You're much smarter than me, but I'm sure if I was smarter I'd win the debate' line that O'reilly always uses to bail himself out when he's outgunned. The thing is one should never be outgunned by O'Reilly.
posted by I Foody at 9:23 AM on January 4, 2006


The Pew Research Center For Linguistic Neutrality recommends "asshole".
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:24 AM on January 4, 2006


who's generally thought of as slightly right-of-center

Which in the states makes him "Left" does it not?
posted by juiceCake at 9:24 AM on January 4, 2006


Serious question to the conservatives in the thread: Why is it that those who most loudly proclaim their undying devotion to our freedoms are always the first to vilify anyone who dares try to use them?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:24 AM on January 4, 2006


Very good JHarris. Expect to be ignored now.
posted by nofundy at 9:25 AM on January 4, 2006


And while they vilify people like Sheehan, they loudly denounce anyone who dares question the motives of the President and his cronies.

Culture of Hypocrisy, baby.
posted by bshort at 9:27 AM on January 4, 2006


I do not believe the US military killed those women and children for the purpose of terrorizing the other side. They were collateral casualties, not targeted as were the civilians targeted by the insurgents.
posted by caddis at 9:27 AM on January 4, 2006


Sorry, but the unintentional deaths of kids /= the intentional deaths of them. Thinking that is obscene.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:27 AM on January 4, 2006


Kwantsar - I think Dios has proven, time and time again, that he's worthy of that label.
posted by bshort at 11:22 AM CST on January 4


But Sheehan hasn't?

So, let me gets this straight:

Calling dios names is Ok.
Calling Bush names is Ok.

Calling Sheehan names is not Ok.

This is why it is impossible to find an ounce of credibility with a lot of you who suggest your problem with me is anything other than politically charged.
posted by dios at 9:28 AM on January 4, 2006


Sheenah and those who now pull her strings don't even support troops in Afghanistan.

F'em.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:28 AM on January 4, 2006




Very interesting to listen to this, and to the John Stewart clips. I love catching up on these things.

Has anyone seen a website that breaks down the method of argument that O'Reilly uses? He is good at it, and before you know it you're defending some position that is undefendable.

Of course they are freedom fighters. Reverse the roles, if this country were invaded we would be fighting just as hard as they are. The whole situation is messed up, we are stuck there unless we want to see civil war and the further along that foreign troops are there the greater the aggression against will be. To say that we don't blow up women and children is forgetting the tonnage of bombs that have been dropped by the Coalition of the Willing over the past 14 years. 30k civilians, I am guess that number should be doubled? Tripled?

Cindy has a voice, just like O'Reilly. To nitpick her statements forgets the basic intent of her statements - why did we send our forces there in the first place? Personally I want to know the decision process in detail - because there should be either some controls for the future or some treason charges.

Further, while I am frothing at the mouth - has anyone heard a single journalist take President Bush to task for saying he took an oath to defend the citizens of the United States?
The oath is to the Constitution - my point being is I believe he and the Administration is shredding this but he keeps getting away with saying is oath is to protect the people.
posted by fluffycreature at 9:29 AM on January 4, 2006


Sheehan is not bright enough to be an effective long term advocate for peace. She just flakes out now and then. Nevertheless, I agree that the tendency by the might makes right crowd to demonize any peace activist is pretty disgusting.
posted by caddis at 9:30 AM on January 4, 2006


My god, would people stop paying attention to dios. The man's a boob. The only thing significant about this dumbass is that people pay any attention to him [...]
posted by rxrfrx at 9:30 AM on January 4, 2006


i also have to say "loses it?" at what point does letterman "lose it"?
posted by quonsar at 9:32 AM on January 4, 2006


IRFH: That's unfair. I have no problem at all with people who speak out about things. You won't here me say a negative thing about them. But this lady holds a special place of loathing based on what she has said and how she has callously used her son's death to trumpet her fringe platform. I don't have a problem with mothers lamenting the loss of sons, but she is different and holds a special place (as does Fred Phelps; it isn't a political issue). I never said she has to be shut-up, but I can criticize her all I want.

It is rather unfair to question my committment to freedom of speech because I find this women worthy of scorn.
posted by dios at 9:33 AM on January 4, 2006


jalexei, annoying to be sure, but "twat" is totally uncalled for.

I generally try and eschew personal attacks and rude language, but (at the risk of sounding like a 6-year-old) our little aspiring demi-facist started it. Besides, you should have seen what I called him before my edits.
posted by jalexei at 9:34 AM on January 4, 2006


This is why it is impossible to find an ounce of credibility with a lot of you who suggest your problem with me is anything other than politically charged.

I think this point has some validity. If you were an equally obnoxious liberal using similarly specious arguments and cheap shots to support your agenda, you'd probably get away with longer it here.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 9:34 AM on January 4, 2006


It is rather unfair to question my committment to freedom of speech because I find this women worthy of scorn.

And just to keep you all off guard, I agree, frankly.
posted by jalexei at 9:36 AM on January 4, 2006


dios, opportunistic to be sure, but "bitch" is totally uncalled for.
posted by mathowie at 9:03 AM PST on January 4


Opportunistic? On what basis are you making that judgement. Are you saying that she has used her son's death for her own personal aggrandizement. Because if that is the case you may as well go ahead and call her a bitch. I don't see much difference between what you said and dios said.
posted by JackFlash at 9:38 AM on January 4, 2006


Bush is an opportunistic bitch who uses other people's sons for his own batshit crazy political purposes.
posted by hellbient at 9:39 AM on January 4, 2006


*impatiently waiting for a response to JHarris' post*
posted by brundlefly at 9:39 AM on January 4, 2006


I'll always associate that trash OReilly with that phone sex scandal a little while back. And Letterman is a phony who uses everyone on his show. Together, they are a couple of useless, stupid and perverted old men. The only thing they're fit to discuss is who's got more ear hair.
posted by GoodJob! at 9:40 AM on January 4, 2006


O'Reilly called MI6 "Em-one-six". What a fucking moron. That's as ignorant as me calling the CIA the "Cee-One-A"

No way a terrorist who blows up women and children is going to be called a ‘freedom fighter’ on my program

Whereas an American invader soldier who does exactly the same thing is certainly going to be called a hero and a credit to his country and a defender of freedom. Right, you disgusting hypocrite?
posted by Decani at 9:42 AM on January 4, 2006


All politics are opportunistic.

Conservatives are winning right now because they understand and embrace this fact, and play filthy nasty hardball, while liberals keep trying to stay morally pure.

Hurray to Cindy Sheehan for taking the OPPORTUNITY afforded her by being the mom of a dead GI to air her views. Pro war moms do it too and are equally opportunistic, and hurray to them too.

Dios calling out Cindy for opportunism is identity politics, just as annoying and effective as when some stupid cultural studies prof does it. Conservatives like Dios use the same exact type of identity-politics argument to criticize a war opponent with no personal connection to the conflict.

On a related note, Letterman used the same identity politics argument when he criticized O'RLY for tucking into Cindy when he had never lost a loved one in conflict.
posted by By The Grace of God at 9:43 AM on January 4, 2006


Just to say: I really hate this name-calling and playground tactics from both sides. He/she started it, and boy-oh-boy you should have read what I could have done - meaning you are so lucky I am wonderful. Sheeesh - do you actually read this stuff?

Anyways back to the discussion.

I think Cindy has a right to say what she wants, like everyone else. How this makes her opportunistic doesn't make sense to me. I think she is concerned with her son's fellow warriors and in particular how they got there. That is community to me - we have to worry about each other rather than wait for someone else to speak up.

So, 12 families just lost some people in a coal mine (in circumstances that would put me over the edge if it was my dad/brother/etc.) The families are now screaming WHY?! Does this make them opportunistic? If they get sponsors and wear the sponsor on their NASCAR hats/coats while they scream for answers, are they opportunistic then?

I won't even bother with O'Reilly/Daily Show/Letterman - by definition their economics depend on an opinion and are thus opportunistic.
posted by fluffycreature at 9:44 AM on January 4, 2006


He clearly comes to the table without any intent of being reasonable and objective.
As do several of the dittoheads here.

Sorry, but the unintentional deaths of kids /= the intentional deaths of them. Thinking that is obscene.
If they were my kids, I would be thinking just that. Then you'd be obscene.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:44 AM on January 4, 2006


On post: What JHarris said.
posted by By The Grace of God at 9:45 AM on January 4, 2006


And I'm another lib-lefty who has little respect for Sheehan and her ilk. Hey, your son chose to go take part in war crime, and I don't recall you shouting too much about it until he paid the price, Ms. Empathy-and-Compassion. But O'Reilly is just a disgusting gobshite.
posted by Decani at 9:46 AM on January 4, 2006


Can we send dios and ParisParamus to Iraq?
posted by papakwanz at 9:47 AM on January 4, 2006


If the proper way to proceed is "Don't speak up," in your opinion, then what possible situation would have to occur in Iraq in order to make speaking up legitimate?

Actually, it's not that people should "(not) speak up"; it's that when they speak up, they should blame the terrorists.

I'm being serious here. The right-wing perception of things here seems to be that when something legitimate goes wrong, the blame needs to be placed on our enemies, even if the blame really lay with us.

So for Cindy Sheehan to escape the criticism from those folks, she would have needed to act exactly as she has done since finding out her son had died, except she needed to go after the terrorists for killing him instead of Bush for putting him there to be killed.


Also: since Dios feels comfortable that the tag "Bitch" is a legitimate one to use on Cindy Sheehan, I feel equally confident that the tag "F---wad" is a legitimate tag to use on Dios. Anyone concur? Heh.

posted by davejay at 9:47 AM on January 4, 2006


First of all, Go Dave!

Second, this cheap gambit:

“O’Reilly: “No way. [waits for applause to die down] No way you’re going to get me, no way that a terrorist who blows up women and children.”

to a question about Sheehan is pathetic and speaks volumes about O'Reilley's character (or lack thereof). (Not that I think he's worth the aggravation he causes many of us, but what the hell).

and dios, my man, no offense, but have you lost your cottin' pickin' mind. I have nothing but sympathy for the Sheehans and while I might not agree with everything she says, but if anyone's entitled to straong opinions on this mess it's her. And we should give her the respect of a listen. Jeez, would you have disregarded Ron Kovic, too?
posted by jonmc at 9:47 AM on January 4, 2006


she has callously used her son's death to trumpet her fringe platform
posted by dios at 12:33 PM EST on January 4

How is this different than using the deaths of those in the World Trade Center to trumpet the belief that Iraq was a threat to the US, dios? As a matter of fact, it's actually less obnoxious, seeing as how she's the dead soldier's mother.
posted by NationalKato at 9:50 AM on January 4, 2006


O'Reilly routinely vilifies and belittles folks and uses ad hominem attack. That's what the Fox network has employed him to do. He holds himself out to be more than a simple entertainer, and should be subject to a greater level of scrutiny. Conversely, Letterman has never set himself out as a serious commentator on the affairs of America. He's an entertainer, pure and simple. And there are people in this thread who want to compare these two for bullshit content? Give me a break. The whole point of this posting was noting that Lettermen actually stepped outside his usual persona of semi-genial host and politely told a guest that he was full of shit. It's not a Joseph Welch moment, but it is a significant signpost as to the public opinion against this war. I say good for Letterman.
posted by bigskyguy at 9:53 AM on January 4, 2006


So, 12 families just lost some people in a coal mine (in circumstances that would put me over the edge if it was my dad/brother/etc.) The families are now screaming WHY?! Does this make them opportunistic?
posted by fluffycreature at 11:44 AM CST on January 4


Not at all. I feel for the families and empathize for the demand for answers. It is certainly not opportunistic of them.

But if they use the press they get from their loss of their loved ones to start preaching their fringe political platform that coal mining is bad for the environment and we should be using wind power because that is what it is going to prevent sudden spontaneous life cessation because of the pigs at Halliburton and their Jewish friends..... then I would start to call them opportunistic and might even level insults at them.

And this is where Cindy lost me. This isn't a woman who just wants to know why her son went to Iraq. This is a woman who has an entirely developed fringe political platform. She claims that her son was sent to Iraq because of some Jewish conspiracy. She thinks Bush was "occupying" New Orleans when the national guard when in. You can read about her; she has all kinds of nutjub ideas. This is the lady who said she wish she would have prevented her son's military burial because she wanted to make a political point as opposed to respecting his service. This is not a lady who is just wanting answers for her son. This is a lady who wants to tell the world about all of her ideas and is using her son's death as her sounding board.
posted by dios at 9:57 AM on January 4, 2006


Sorry, but the unintentional deaths of kids /= the intentional deaths of them. Thinking that is obscene.
posted by ParisParamus at 9:27 AM PST on January 4 [!]

If you know for a fact that your bombing is going to cause collateral damage which is going to result in the deaths of kids, then does not make the killing itself intentional?

No, thinking like that is not obscene. Rather, it is called "thinking." How convenient it makes life if the deaths caused by our side are unintentional and the deaths caused by the other side are intentional. It absolves us of responsibility for any killing whatsoever.
posted by flarbuse at 9:57 AM on January 4, 2006


I used to be a Letterman nut, and that's the first time I've seen that sentiment expressed.

gsteff, enthusiastic to be sure, but "nut" is totally uncalled for.
posted by designbot at 9:58 AM on January 4, 2006


From watching the video clip, I'd like to know what this 'M-1-6' intelligence agency that we have in the UK is...

I'd also like to know what's up with Putin's intelligence on Iraqi WMD's cos I seem to recall Russia was not too keen on joining their good anglo-american friends in Iraq, was it? But you never know, perhaps Russia was actually providing the clinching argument to the US to go into Iraq and everyone just completely forgot about that amazing part. I trust O'Reilly's memory to be at least 60% more accurate.
posted by funambulist at 9:58 AM on January 4, 2006


Enough with the name callin'.

dios- You'd be surprised at the power of a mother's grief over the death of her son. I wonder if this is a gender thing- are there any women out there other than Ann Coulter (whom I suspect is secretly hiding a cock) denouncing Sheehan as "batshit"?

So, 12 families just lost some people in a coal mine (in circumstances that would put me over the edge if it was my dad/brother/etc.) The families are now screaming WHY?! Does this make them opportunistic?

Moreover, if they testified in front of a Congressional committee to help shepherd through (BADLY NEEDED) tighter workplace controls for mining, does that make them puppets of some Radical Left Wing agenda?


On "loses it"- I meant "loses the façade" more than "loses his mind/control". Bad choice of words, I guess...
posted by mkultra at 10:00 AM on January 4, 2006


Em-One-Six. Hee.
posted by mr_roboto at 10:00 AM on January 4, 2006


Letterman is the biggest mama's boy phony in all of show business and OReilly is an arrogant dummy. Have u ever listened to his comments about Canada?
posted by GoodJob! at 10:00 AM on January 4, 2006


of the pigs at Halliburton and their Jewish friends.....

Can you point to where Cindy Sheehan has made statements that make her anti-Semitic?

I believe Halliburton are a bunch of pigs, so I have not questions where, except perhaps if I should have said "Halliburton is a bunch of pigs." (?)
Halliburton is a whole other argument, but I am curious if she has outed herself in this way.

Or is this a "When did you stop beating your wife?" argument?
posted by fluffycreature at 10:01 AM on January 4, 2006


who's generally thought of as slightly right-of-center

I used to be a Letterman nut, and that's the first time I've seen that sentiment expressed.


I've always seen him as a mainstream, slightly right-of-center, support-our-troops comedian. I agree he's not nearly as funny as he was late night on NBC, but it's still the same shtick.
posted by mrgrimm at 10:01 AM on January 4, 2006


Oh, and this:

unintentional deaths of kids

is fairly disingenuous as well. They're more properly labeled as "acceptable collateral damage". Which becomes awfully awkward when you start to question the premise for war.
posted by mkultra at 10:03 AM on January 4, 2006


Paris:the unintentional deaths of kids /= the intentional deaths of them
Unless you are a dead kid. The use of the term intention is a bit difficult here. Our nation's actions were taken on the macro level with the foreknowledge that lots of kids would die. That we might prefer it if, by some wizard's spell, not single child were to die as a result of us blowing up and burning down places where they live does not absolve us morally.

We blow up babies because the loss is acceptable in the service of the greater good as we define it. The terrorists blow up babies because the loss is acceptable to the greater good as they define it. If the terrorists could get what they wanted without blowing up babies they wouldn't blow up babies. If the terrorists had the organization and resources that we have they would probably blow up babies more like we do. Would that make them right and us wrong?

Now my point is ultimately that the manner in which we blow up babies has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with our power. Any hope of taking the moral highroad on this one, and I believe we have it relative to the terrorists, is by having a superior definition of the greater good. However, that our morality is better than that of the terrorists is a small comfort, almost the smallest comfort I can imagine like siting in the Malebolge and priding myself on not being in Cocytus.

I think the US ought to have a higher threshold as far as what we're willing to kill babies for than we've displayed in this war. I would like our greater good to be better.
posted by I Foody at 10:04 AM on January 4, 2006


How do you have one iota of right to criticize someone who lost a son regardless of how much you disagree with her "crazy" politics.

I think the war in Iraq was a humongous mistake based on lies and misinformation, but this kind of statement is just stupid. Losing a son does not put up some kind of magical force field that makes everything you say unimpeachably true.
posted by designbot at 10:05 AM on January 4, 2006


Still waiting for dios or peepee to provide a logical and/or coherent response to JHarris ....
posted by nofundy at 10:05 AM on January 4, 2006


serious question: Has Cindy Sheehan referred to Iraqi insurgents as freedon fighters?

It was a pleasure to see Letterman, whose show I still enjoy sometimes, give O'Reilly, who is a puffed up, self-important, windbag, a hard time. Dave at least had the courtesy to keep O'Reilly's mike live, a courtesy that O'Reilly does not always extend to his guests.
posted by theora55 at 10:06 AM on January 4, 2006


Can you point to where Cindy Sheehan has made statements that make her anti-Semitic? posted by fluffycreature at 12:01 PM CST on January 4

Here is one article on it.
posted by dios at 10:07 AM on January 4, 2006


Especially after Letterman admitted he doesn't watch O'Reilly's show, and thinks baby bombers=freedom fighters.

Some baby bombers are not freedom fighters. And some baby bombers are.

But to the dead babies, it doesn't really matter.
posted by three blind mice at 10:08 AM on January 4, 2006


Is it really fair to call an OpEd by a Reason magazine contributor an article?
posted by trey at 10:09 AM on January 4, 2006


Watching it live, you get the feeling that Letterman *has* seen O'Reilly's show and felt how many people feel about O'Reilly - that he's a big bully who throws incorrect facts around like confetti.

I was a little surprised, but Letterman of late has definitely had a "support-the-troops-but-anti-war" tinge when talking to "political-type" guests (like Al Franken, or even Bill Clinton).

And regarding this FPP - I guess I was too hopeful that the discourse would be more civil...I should really stay out of these threads I suppose.
posted by fishbulb at 10:10 AM on January 4, 2006


I'm not the Letterman fan I once was, but my opinion of him has gone way up. Good for Dave.
posted by wsg at 10:10 AM on January 4, 2006


Are you suggesting the quotations are inaccruate? If not, then what is your point?
posted by dios at 10:10 AM on January 4, 2006


she has callously used her son's death to trumpet her fringe platform
posted by dios at 12:33 PM EST on January 4

How is this different than using the deaths of those in the World Trade Center to trumpet the belief that Iraq was a threat to the US, dios? As a matter of fact, it's actually less obnoxious, seeing as how she's the dead soldier's mother.
posted by NationalKato at 12:50 PM EST on January 4 [!]


just felt that was well worth repeating.

and repeating:

How is this different than using the deaths of those in the World Trade Center to trumpet the belief that Iraq was a threat to the US
posted by quonsar at 10:10 AM on January 4, 2006


dios, previously I had respect for you. Now you deserve about as much as Paris Paramus. Disgusting. How dare you insult a mother who's lost her son in a war brought about on a lie? How dare you?
posted by mk1gti at 10:10 AM on January 4, 2006


But this lady holds a special place of loathing based on what she has said and how she has callously used her son's death to trumpet her fringe platform.

It's interesting that dios has posted exactly zero factual justifications for Cindy Sheehan's actual bitchood. He calls her platform "fringe" but as far as I know it's just the pullout from Iraq, which a slight, at least, majority of Americas favor. What's so fringe about her platform? What is her platform Dios?

What are some specific incidents where she acted like a Bitch?
posted by delmoi at 10:11 AM on January 4, 2006


Didn't O'Reilly play the opportunistist card for that bloke who lost his father in the World Trade Center collapse. Jeremy Glick was it?
posted by juiceCake at 10:11 AM on January 4, 2006


mathowie writes "Has anyone ever called Iraqis 'freedom fighters' on MetaFilter?"

I may have in the "one man's terrorist is another man's Freedom Fighter" kind of way, the two labels are often synonomous depending on which side of the gun your standing. The Iraqi insurgents are fighting the only ways they can against a country that invaded a soveign nation. Unless the former soviet repblics or China or ssomeone steps up and starts supplying the insurgents with attack helicopters, destroyers, gun boats and bombers there is going to be a lot of car bombs and few attacks on even incountry bases and capital equipment.
posted by Mitheral at 10:12 AM on January 4, 2006


Here is one article on it.


Is it really fair to call an OpEd by a Reason magazine contributor an article?


And from an author who can't get basic facts straight?
"Correction: Last week I referred to Robert Byrd as a senator from Virginia. He is from West Virginia."
posted by ericb at 10:14 AM on January 4, 2006


Please ignore the dios / ParisParamus threadcrapper bot. There is nothing to see here. Move along.
posted by mk1gti at 10:15 AM on January 4, 2006


I don't know if Sheehan's really an opportunistic activist or a pissed-off mom, but this I do know: ParisParamus and Dios are inordinately fond of falafel.
posted by alumshubby at 10:15 AM on January 4, 2006


what bigskyguy said.

also , i'm kind of sick of seeing mud slung at Mrs. Sheehan, i don't know what some people are expecting of a mother who has lost a son. but i for one expect her to be doing something about it, if its grieving , or speaking out , as in groups such as MADD or MAMA and so on. what ever she needs to do to work through it , thats her business, IMO.
posted by nola at 10:17 AM on January 4, 2006


Anyone who stayed through the end of the show heard Dave say, "I'd like to thank most of our guests tonight..." before mentioning their names.
posted by pmurray63 at 10:17 AM on January 4, 2006


Yay, Letterman.
posted by agregoli at 10:17 AM on January 4, 2006


Armitage_Shanks you'd probably get away with longer it here.

I'd agree with that, Armitage (well, as least the properly worded sentiment), as Metafilter is pretty far away from what you oxymoronically might call a "right-wing thinktank."
posted by thanotopsis at 10:17 AM on January 4, 2006


For those of you who feel it necessary to tell me that they lose respect for me for being critical of Cindy Sheehan: save it. It doesn't matter to me. If your the kind of person who loses respect for someone for being critical of Cindy Sheehan, then I think your respect is not worth me being concerned with anyhow.

Why are people so concerned with my opinion on her? Where does Cindy's sacred ground come from? I am somehow a monster for offering a critical opinion of her, but then on the other hand, I am lambasted for being critical of a person who is merely trying to state her opinion. It is a moebius strip up in this place.
posted by dios at 10:18 AM on January 4, 2006


How is this different than using the deaths of those in the World Trade Center to trumpet the belief that Iraq was a threat to the US

The consequences are much greater of course. But some are perfectly fine with such consequences, the lies, the deaths, the corruption, the debt, the idiocizing of the country, etc.

Quite astounding.
posted by juiceCake at 10:20 AM on January 4, 2006


funambulist writes "But you never know, perhaps Russia was actually providing the clinching argument to the US to go into Iraq and everyone just completely forgot about that amazing part"

Wasn't the forgotten one Poland?

GoodJob! writes "OReilly is an arrogant dummy. Have u ever listened to his comments about Canada?"

Canuckistan you mean? Idiot.
posted by Mitheral at 10:20 AM on January 4, 2006


I don't know if Sheehan's really an opportunistic activist or a pissed-off mom..

She's a stooge alumshubby. A frustrated, angry, not very bright mother who lost her son in a meaningless war.

Political activists are using her - not vice versa. I mean have you listened to what this woman says? If she's the driving force behind the anti-war movement, settle yourselves in for a very long war.
posted by three blind mice at 10:21 AM on January 4, 2006


Ok, I do see dios did point to that boston.com article. Still, it's a bit on the shrill side, for example.
In her public appearances, Sheehan has not only called Bush 'the biggest terrorist in the world" but suggested that his 'band of neocons" deliberately allowed the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 to happen: '9/11 was their Pearl Harbor to get their neo-con agenda through," she told a cheering crowd at San Francisco State University last April.
That particular statement only makes sense if you assume as a premise that Sheehan believes FDR deliberately allowed the Perl Harbor to happen. Most people don't believe that, and there's no evidence presented that sheehan belives it.

I don't think Calling bush et.al. "Neocons" is in any way crazy.
Even more troubling opinions have surfaced in an e-mail Sheehan sent to ABC News last April: 'Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC [Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think thank] Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel."
Sheehan claimed that she never wrote this, and that the letter was altered by another anti-war person, who she disassociated herself from. It's an old smear, but this article is from august 22nd. The "reporter" mentions the controversy, but if the facts are in dispute, why even post it?

As far as I can tell Sheehan is a "bitch" because she calls Neocons Neocons, and for something that didn't even happen.
posted by delmoi at 10:21 AM on January 4, 2006


fringe political platform

Dios, you can mouth this phrase as many times as you want (and boy, do you), but repetition doesn't make it accurate. But hey, keep clanging those cymbals!
posted by Skot at 10:22 AM on January 4, 2006


I say good for Letterman.

Me too. I say it's about time.

The only thing better would be if Letterman pimp slapped that degenerate pussy and told him to get the fuck off his stage.

I think it's beyond purely politics at this point. Who does this O'Reilly think he is? He stomps around like he is bullet proof and trashes the very people who are his professional peers. Eventually what goes around comes around.

Letterman, like the rest of us, has had enough. But I also believe it's personal.

Letterman has friends in the comedy business who have been subjected to the most egregious assaults by people like "Oh Really." Like Garafalo and Franken. Though Franken has done more than his share of dishing it out, too.

Sure these celebs have gone overboard with their self-importance and histrionics at times. But they are citizens, right?

I know Letterman used to really like Franken (not sure these days) - and I think when O'Reilly started going after Franken personally - saying he did coke and cheated on his wife (maybe true - I don't know) and shit like that. I think guys like Letterman begin to to want to tangle.

You can bet O'Reilly and Fox will start an anti-Letterman campaign immediately. Paint him as a communist ex-drug addict pervert. You know. Just like one of us here on MetaFilter.
posted by tkchrist at 10:22 AM on January 4, 2006


her sacred ground comes from the bloody soil where her son lay taking in his final breath sir.
posted by nola at 10:22 AM on January 4, 2006


O'Reilly deserved it, but Letterman was a bit too kind. More like 99% of everything O'Reilly says is crap.
posted by mike3k at 10:23 AM on January 4, 2006


Are you suggesting the quotations are inaccurate? If not, then what is your point?

Are you suggesting the quotes are accurate? Okay, which ones?

If so, you have a thin argument for "Halliburton and their Jewish friends." It's an op/ed with a thinly created argument against Cindy Sheehan, more emotion than logic.

I would like to change the argument away from her, and more to the point that she raised the discussion of "Why?" about this war, and she was raked over the coals for it. I applaud her for speaking out.

Do we as a country do too much around the state of Israel? Sure, I would agree with that. That a great deal different than point "their Jewish friends." If you are not aware of the difference, I don't know what to tell you as that is a whole other discussion. I will say there is a difference and won't be pulled into some BS argument about Jews.
posted by fluffycreature at 10:24 AM on January 4, 2006


"her sacred ground comes from the bloody soil where her son lay taking in his final breath sir."
posted by nola at 10:22 AM PST on January 4 [!]
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:24 AM on January 4, 2006


Dios: How is this different than using the deaths of those in the World Trade Center to trumpet the belief that Iraq was a threat to the US.

Without a good answer to this question, Dios, I get the feeling nearly everyone here will finally know 100% of everything you say is crap.
posted by Rothko at 10:25 AM on January 4, 2006


If your the kind of person who loses respect for someone for being critical of Cindy Sheehan, then I think your respect is not worth me being concerned with anyhow

Critical is one thing (and everyone should be subject to it), but that was hardly a critique. more like a hatchet job.
posted by jonmc at 10:26 AM on January 4, 2006


I do not believe the US military killed those women and children for the purpose of terrorizing the other side. They were collateral casualties, not targeted as were the civilians targeted by the insurgents.

How do you figure that, caddis? Do you just hope that's the case? In reality, the military carries out its operations in Iraq knowing full well that it will result in the deaths of innocent people. The fact that it isn't their primary objective is hardly a deciding factor.

Anyways, it's always good to see crackpots like O'Reilly being denounced in the mainstream. I suppose O'Reilly is of the opinion that all publicity is good publicity but getting cuffed like this in public at least puts him in his place.

Rothko, dios is trolling. Once in a while you may consider just passing up the bait. Making the thread about him, yet again, is exactly what he wants.
posted by nixerman at 10:27 AM on January 4, 2006


dios: I was thinking particularly of this disconnect from O'Reilly when I posed my question, although it was the viciousness of your attack on Sheehan the woman (as opposed to her views) that also sparked my question -

"Cindy Sheehan lost a son, a professional soldier in Iraq, correct? She has a right to grieve any way she wants, she has a right to say whatever she wants." [My emphasis]

Well, if that's true, then why not afford her the respect he requests for himself (and that you have repeatedly asked for from your detractors here), and simply argue the merits of her position. Why is it necessary to demonize her if the argument against her can so easily be dismissed?

I have not read anything to date suggesting that Sheehan was an anti-war protester prior to the death of her son, so I can see absolutely no basis for calling her opportunistic. And for someone who claims to love our freedoms to demonize someone who's real sacrifice and pain drives them to speak for something you disagree with strikes me as hypocritical, fair or not. You may support the legal extent of her rights by not asking that she be physically stopped from expressing herself. But using character assassination to shut down one's opponents, while usually legal, has always seemed to me like a particularly telling way around a real distaste for letting a true democracy of ideas flourish. When anyone does it.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:27 AM on January 4, 2006


From dios' "article":

'Am I emotional? Yes, my first born was murdered. Am I angry? Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC [Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think thank] Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel. My son joined the army to protect America, not Israel."

I assume this is what you're calling anti-Semitic? What a pile of horse shit. Disagreeing with the nation of Israel and not wanting our government/military to support it is not anti-Semitic. Where does she say anything negative about the Jewish faith?

That's dishonest, dios, and I have the feeling you know it.

On preview: I have no problem with you criticizing Sheehan. Hell, I have my own problems with her. But if you're going to say she's a morally reprehensible person, you'd better be able to back that up with something other than than your disagreement with her (not to mention that critical-of-our-foreign-policy-regarding-Israel = hates-the-Jews bullshit).
posted by brundlefly at 10:28 AM on January 4, 2006


caddis: Sheehan is not bright enough to be an effective long term advocate for peace. She just flakes out now and then.

By The Grace Of God: Dios calling out Cindy for opportunism is identity politics, just as annoying and effective as when some stupid cultural studies prof does it.

The most on-the-point things I've read in this thread. I sympathize with Cindy Sheehan's loss and feel that she has the right to emote and react in whatever way she feels is right. However, I think that she is more of a caricature of a view now than ever and that she's furthering an obnoxious stereotype that can be pulled out as a straw man in conversation by the likes of O'Reilly and really wish she didn't have a following this large.

Yes, he can use her as an example of how the horrible anti-war crowd is crazy, but he also needs to recognize that she went crazy because her son was killed in a conflict for which there are good reasons to object. Acting like she is an adversary and that her rhetoric needs to be addressed with insults means that he's at the same level. The more ranting O'Reilly does about her, the more sympathizers and detractors she'll have and the actual idea gets lost in the battle.

I think Sheehan's five minutes were up a long time ago, but O'Reilly is milking her for all it's worth, and that's sad.
posted by mikeh at 10:28 AM on January 4, 2006


I assume this is what you're calling anti-Semitic? What a pile of horse shit. Disagreeing with the nation of Israel and not wanting our government/military to support it is not anti-Semitic. Where does she say anything negative about the Jewish faith?

Not to mention, she claims she never said that crap about Israel. Israel is almost certainly worse off because of the Iraq war, IMO.
posted by delmoi at 10:32 AM on January 4, 2006


Rothko, dios is trolling. Making the thread about him, yet again, is exactly what he wants.

I guess Dios is just an opportunistic bitch, then.
posted by Rothko at 10:32 AM on January 4, 2006


As for the comparison of 9/11 to Cindy Sheehan: it is a clever analog because it takes the position that there was a preconcieved idea about Iraq and that Bush used 9/11 to advance it. Here, I have stated that Cindy Sheehan used her son's death to trumpet her preconcieved politics. So on that level alone, there would be an analog. It fails, though when delved into deeper. For one, the direct response to 9/11 was Afganistan, not Iraq. The secondary response was to try to go after terrorists and countries that harbor them, such as Iraq. But there existed other reasons to go into Iraq, so, at best, 9/11 would be seen as a tipping point. But looking at Cindy's response: is it a reasonable response to the loss of a son to suggest that there is jewish conspiracy that led to her son's death? Did the loss of her son have any effect at all on her politics? No. She was preaching stuff she already believed. And here, it reaches the level of opinion, I find her views to be unreasonable and qualitativey absurd. So, using her son's death to preach her ideas that I find absurd is repulsive to me. I don't think the Iraq policy is absurd, and the tangential link to 9/11 at least has some credible link. But in the end, it is just my opinion on the substance of her comments and method. If she was just a grieving mother, I wouldn't have any issue with her. If she was just a pasicfist who lost her son, and said "peace is good, war is bad" then I wouldn't have any issue with her. But she has ridiculous ideas (e.g, the US is the terrorist, not al Qaeda), and using her son to promote this is callous, in my estimation. It would have been if Bush used 9/11 to throw ban abortion. That is an analog I find closer to the Sheehan model.
posted by dios at 10:34 AM on January 4, 2006


Rothko, dios is trolling. Making the thread about him, yet again, is exactly what he wants.

I guess Dios is just an opportunistic bitch, then.
posted by Rothko



whoa! did he lose a family member then?
posted by nola at 10:35 AM on January 4, 2006


Note, my last comment is in response to quonsar. I was not responding to anyone else.
posted by dios at 10:35 AM on January 4, 2006


great that saves me from having to read it :P
posted by nola at 10:36 AM on January 4, 2006


Do Freedom Fighters eat Freedom Fries?
posted by GoodJob! at 10:37 AM on January 4, 2006


nola: you didn't miss anything
posted by mr.marx at 10:38 AM on January 4, 2006


But looking at Cindy's response: is it a reasonable response to the loss of a son to suggest that there is jewish conspiracy that led to her son's death?

Defend this. Where has Sheehan said this? If it's based on that passage I quoted, you're distorting it pretty heavily -- if not completely misrepresenting it.
posted by brundlefly at 10:38 AM on January 4, 2006


So don't nobody else reply to it.

It was for quonsar only.

---'---,---@ dios
posted by Baby_Balrog at 10:38 AM on January 4, 2006


I do not believe the US military killed those women and children for the purpose of terrorizing the other side. They were collateral casualties, not targeted as were the civilians targeted by the insurgents.

"Shock and Awe" baby - we almost had a sponsor for the beginning of the war when this thing began. So accurate, so lethal, our bad-asses advertised the start - do you think we didn't intend to terrorize them? Pleeeeeze, we were bragging about it.
Because we have a news conference afterwards to apologize for "mistargeting" does not make it better.

Brought to you by Pepsi.
posted by fluffycreature at 10:38 AM on January 4, 2006


I am somehow a monster for offering a critical opinion of her, but then on the other hand, I am lambasted for being critical of a person who is merely trying to state her opinion.

If you had offered some sort of reasonable argument, rather than just calling her an "opportunistic bitch," then you might have a leg to stand on.
posted by bshort at 10:39 AM on January 4, 2006


is it a reasonable response to the loss of a son to suggest that there is jewish conspiracy that led to her son's death?

Woah, woah, Cindy Sheehan never, never claimed there was a "Jewish conspiracy" to get the US into Iraq, unless you want to make the idiotic argument that "Neocon == Jew". The crack about Israel isn't even true.
posted by delmoi at 10:39 AM on January 4, 2006


As for the comparison of 9/11 to Cindy Sheehan: it is a clever analog because it takes the position that there was a preconcieved idea about Iraq and that Bush used 9/11 to advance it.

I guess Dios takes the position Richard Clarke is a member of liberal elite and black is white, since it is well established by former cabinet members that Iraq was the target well before 9/11, and that a pretext was needed to invade.
posted by Rothko at 10:40 AM on January 4, 2006


Where does Cindy's sacred ground come from?

Well. I agree with you on this. Sheehan is an idiot. I'm sorry she lost her son - like am all those that have lost on both sides of this nightmare war. But she is an idiot. That is true.

The left is not immune from over-simplifying an issue to a slogan and creating a mascot to it hang on. I said this months ago - when Sheehan first appeared. As predicted it was Bush's (Katrina) incompetence that turned public option. But he is climbing back up and will probably go out of office with a 45-55% approval rating. Unless this Abramhof thing can touch him or there is a major Terrorist attack on US soil.

But Dios you have to understand. This war is THE biggest single strategic error of the last 40 years. The facts are against you. The stakes are are so high that no amount of denial or white wash will change that. If you care about this country at all you had better wake up. We still have a chance to fix it. We will have to hang this administration out to dry and disavow our selves of their strategic incompetence for al the world to see. If we don't we will be eaten alive by debt, endless enemies of our own creation, and systemic entropy.
posted by tkchrist at 10:40 AM on January 4, 2006


Woah, woah, Cindy Sheehan never, never claimed there was a "Jewish conspiracy" to get the US into Iraq, unless you want to make the idiotic argument that "Neocon == Jew". The crack about Israel isn't even true.
posted by delmoi at 12:39 PM CST on January 4


I'll absolutely make that assumption because that is the tenor in which the comment is made.

You don't have to agree with me. But when someone constantly refers insidiously to a neo-con cabal and is opposed to the United States support of Israel, I am going to assume they are being obliquely, if not explicitly, anti-semetic. You don't have to agree. But it shows in my mind an anti-semetic viewpoint intended to suggest a nefarious control by Jewish people; one that is intended to be triggered in the mind of the reader.
posted by dios at 10:44 AM on January 4, 2006


But when someone constantly refers insidiously to a neo-con cabal and is opposed to the United States support of Israel, I am going to assume they are being obliquely, if not explicitly, anti-semetic.

Why?
posted by brundlefly at 10:45 AM on January 4, 2006


Ok, it's clear Dios is just spreading th lie that Sheehan is some kind of anti-Semite. Which means he believes some of the far-right moonbat lies about her.

In other words, he has no idea what he's talking about, and should be ignored.

Glad we cleared that up. As usual Dios required like 12 comments before he actually said what he believed (which was garbage), rather then. When someone comes at you with their fundamental facts wrong, it's usually the end of the argument. If Dios had come out and said that he thought Sheehan was an anti-Semite, it would have been absurd on it's face, and no one would bother to respond, rather we had to spend this whole thread trying to suss out what dios thought made her a "bitch".
posted by delmoi at 10:46 AM on January 4, 2006


as I said earlier . . . .

Please ignore the ParisParamus threadcrapper bot. There is nothing to see here. Move along.
posted by mk1gti at 10:47 AM on January 4, 2006


tkchrist: This war is THE biggest single strategic error of the last 40 years.

If this is what resonates with you: that you've chosen the wrong strategy in the great global competition... well... at least we come to the same conclusion.
posted by Popular Ethics at 10:48 AM on January 4, 2006


and the dios threadcrapper bot . . .
posted by mk1gti at 10:48 AM on January 4, 2006


Even if she is an anti-Semite, that still doesn't answer the primary question: is the bitch factor a phenotype or a karyotype?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 10:49 AM on January 4, 2006


You don't have to agree with me. But when someone constantly refers insidiously to a neo-con cabal and is opposed to the United States support of Israel, I am going to assume they are being obliquely, if not explicitly, anti-semetic.

Well, I think that's stupid.

Still, where has Sheehan ever said anything about Israel beyond that obvious forgery? Did you believe Killian was pissed off about GWB skipping out on the Texas Air National Guard as well? The only other sentiment I've seen is that she doesn't think Israel should have nukes, which seems sensible to me.
posted by delmoi at 10:49 AM on January 4, 2006


"Shock and Awe" baby - we almost had a sponsor for the beginning of the war when this thing began.

THIS is a very good point. I hear the right go on about "there were children on those planes on 9/11! CHILDREN!" as proof of the monstrosity of Bin Laden.

Huh?

I suppose that Bush is SO stupid as to think that the Iraqi's reproduce asexually and there are only voluntary combatants of draft-age males in the population. That is the only way he could explain away the "unintended" deaths of innocents or collateral damage. Approximately 10 to 20 times that of civilian casualties of 9/11.

Shock and Awe - if we were interested in liberating a people from a tyrant - was entirely the wrong strategy to use.

O'Reilly and his ilk have no justification for using the death tolls - or even a comparison of the modes of attack - as vindication of Bush Doctrine.
posted by tkchrist at 10:50 AM on January 4, 2006


Wow. It's like Dios was killed and replaced by ParisParisimus.
posted by unreason at 10:50 AM on January 4, 2006


Why?

Much like putting forth that pedophilia is a sexual orientation, much like suggesting that there was no invented pretext for war on Iraq, and that Semites are only Jewish people, Dios believes that any criticism of the Israeli government equals a condemnation of the Jewish religious faith and therefore equals anti-Semitism.

No explanation is necessary. Those are just the worms eating through his brain that he wants to share with the rest of us, unfortunately. Given time, the site will finally get that his brain is like a pinball machine with the wiring yanked out and the bumpers broken.
posted by Rothko at 10:50 AM on January 4, 2006


In March, 2005, James Morris sent an e-mail, written by Sheehan, to ABC's Nightline that allegedly included the statements that Casey "was killed for lies and for a PNAC Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel" and that he had "joined the Army to protect America, not Israel." Sheehan denies the allegations, "I've never said that... Those aren't even words that I would say. I do believe that the Palestinian issue is a hot issue that needs to be solved, and it needs to be more fair and equitable, but I never said my son died for Israel," and claims that the email was modified by James Morris to support his own personal agenda

An email ? An E-mail ?? A baby can falisify that.

It's a simple character assassination attempt, shoot the messenger when you can't shoot the arguments without looking unpopular.
posted by elpapacito at 10:51 AM on January 4, 2006


anyway i enjoyed seeing dave poke at ol' bill .

bill really needs to be taken down a peg or two. such an overbearing bully.
posted by nola at 10:52 AM on January 4, 2006


Without a good answer to this question, Dios, I get the feeling nearly everyone here will finally know 100% of everything you say is crap.

Um, Rothko, the question about the World Trace Center comparison was mine, not dios'. Somehow that seems to have been lost in all this junk.

dios originally stated that Ms. Sheehan was using her son's death to trumpet her fringe cause - I then asked how that was different than those who have used the WTC deaths to trumpet their own.

Let's make sure we quote people correctly, aye?
posted by NationalKato at 10:52 AM on January 4, 2006


" Can we send dios and ParisParamus to Iraq?"

No, because they are cowards who prefer that other people die for their repugnant beliefs.
posted by 2sheets at 10:52 AM on January 4, 2006


“Why is it that those who most loudly proclaim their undying devotion to our freedoms are always the first to vilify anyone who dares try to use them?”
- posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson

Easy Rider

“Billy: What the hell is wrong with freedom? That's what it's all about.
George Hanson: Oh, yeah, that's right. That's what's it's all about, all right. But talkin' about it and bein' it, that's two different things. I mean, it's real hard to be free when you are bought and sold in the marketplace. Of course, don't ever tell anybody that they're not free, 'cause then they're gonna get real busy killin' and maimin' to prove to you that they are. Oh, yeah, they're gonna talk to you, and talk to you, and talk to you about individual freedom. But they see a free individual, it's gonna scare 'em.
Billy: Well, it don't make 'em runnin' scared.
George Hanson: No, it makes 'em dangerous.”

That and the ending of the film. The dichotomy there between Capt. America and Billy and the rednecks who kill them (”Git a haircut”). It’s not as simple and stupid as it looks. Hanson is right about the latter part - but the theme of the movie is about people who take those freedoms for granted. An “easy rider” is a guy who’s old lady is a whore and he gets by doing nothing living off her. (Remember the coke? The nervousness about sharing stuff, etc. etc.)

Hence the villification. At least from my perspective. But both POV’s are correct. They’re not mutually exclusive.

Which is why I respect Sheehan. She is doing SOMETHING to support the troops. Some sacrifice. Whether one agrees with it or not.
I might disagree or agree with war protesters but they are putting in time for their country. I don’t see O’ R’lyeh doing anything that isn’t self-serving. I’m not a big Al Franken fan either, but it looks to me like he busts his ass for the USO.

The difference is these guys had a platform before all this. Sheehan didn’t. Whether she’s being used or not or using her sons death is open to debate, but I’m sure losing a child is a hell of a motivator to find a platform to shout from.

There are Easy Riders on the right as well. And I am getting a bit tired of this patriotism crap and who loves the country more etc - I’m not saying you have to serve in order to support the war - but you sure as hell should be doing something more than beating the drum and slapping the magnetic yellow ribbon sticker on your car or giving money to partisan causes or just talking shit. The DAV is always looking for volunteers. Plenty of other causes out there, only takes a few hours a week. Gives you some perspective as well.

Letterman might just be an entertainer, but at least makes no pretense.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:52 AM on January 4, 2006


An email ? An E-mail ?? A baby can falisify that.

The kerning's off.
posted by Rothko at 10:53 AM on January 4, 2006


Why?
posted by brundlefly at 12:45 PM CST on January 4


Because I am capable of basic comprehension. When such comments are made, they are made for a purpose. They are not incidental.

And delmoi: there are lots of other comments equally reprehensible. Her comments that Bush was occupying New Orleands; that America is the terrorist, not al qaeda; that she should have refused her son's military burial; that she believes that the insurgents are freedom fighters; she said she thought America is engaged in Genocide; that going into Afganistan was wrong; that we were using nuclear warfare in Iraq; that the hurricane was a distraction from her attention.

So don't try to say I only have problems with her because of her semtic viewpoint.
posted by dios at 10:53 AM on January 4, 2006


Has anyone seen a website that breaks down the method of argument that O'Reilly uses? He is good at it, and before you know it you're defending some position that is undefendable.

&#60Godwin Alert>It's called the Big Lie.&#60/Godwin Alert>
posted by ereshkigal45 at 10:53 AM on January 4, 2006


Damn. That bracket was fine in preview.
posted by ereshkigal45 at 10:53 AM on January 4, 2006


How do you have one iota of right to criticize someone who lost a son regardless of how much you disagree with her "crazy" politics.

I think the war in Iraq was a humongous mistake based on lies and misinformation, but this kind of statement is just stupid. Losing a son does not put up some kind of magical force field that makes everything you say unimpeachably true.

Shoddy I agree - dios of course had every right to disagree. I was more venting my spleen at those who call her "opportunistic" simply because she lost a son. She may very well be, but we don't know, and I don't think we, from our distance, have a right to dimish her grief, nor to simply dismiss her as a "bitch"
posted by jalexei at 10:54 AM on January 4, 2006


So don't try to say I only have problems with her because of her semtic viewpoint.

Maybe she is oriented towards pedophiles, too. Don't stop inventing whatever shit flies through your head, Dios. It's entertaining.
posted by Rothko at 10:55 AM on January 4, 2006


So is it time to retitle this thread "Dios loses it", or what?
posted by prostyle at 10:56 AM on January 4, 2006


Because I am capable of basic comprehension. When such comments are made, they are made for a purpose. They are not incidental.

Wow! Great non-answer. It's true because it's true? There are no reasons to oppose our support of Israel other than anti-Semitism?
posted by brundlefly at 10:56 AM on January 4, 2006


You don't have to agree with me. But when someone constantly refers insidiously to a neo-con cabal and is opposed to the United States support of Israel, I am going to assume they are being obliquely, if not explicitly, anti-semetic. You don't have to agree.


Ah, okay. Then, using this logic I am going to say the following: Because President Bush has repeatedly stated his dislike for "activist judges" (which I would point out he states only when it is convenient) I am to assume he is obliquely, if not explicitly anti-judicial. He is against the Judiciary branch of the government.

Unfortunately, at this point in his Presidency, I can bring up a great deal of sources, of all types, that will support this claim. I have no idea if I am right or not, but it sure makes my argument that is a totalitarian want-to-be.

My point is find your method of logic is flawed, and can be abused when applied to other situations.

I have an opinion - Bush is the worst thing to happen to this country since it began. Using my above argument to call him a totalitarian does not back up my opinion of him.

Again, Cindy is the messanger, and the message is this is the wrong War. Why are we there and how did we get there?
posted by fluffycreature at 10:56 AM on January 4, 2006


Because I am capable of basic comprehension. When such comments are made, they are made for a purpose. They are not incidental.

Great, all people who complain about Neocons are anti-Semites. Gotcha.

It's weird how all the Jews I know are big liberals. Must be the self-hating kind.

It's a stupid viewpoint and I honestly thing someone who would belive such a thing ought to be ignored.
posted by delmoi at 10:59 AM on January 4, 2006


If this is what resonates with you: that you've chosen the wrong strategy in the great global competition... well... at least we come to the same conclusion.

It is one of the things that does. And why should it not? I, and my children, have to live in a world now made infinitely less productive, civil, and secure (all elements of successful geopolitical strategy) than it was in 1997. A world that WAS slanted , fairly or not, to my advantage making me and my families life as easy as ever seen in human history. Are you seriously imputing me for this "resonance?" Then, IMO, you would be a fool or hypocrite or both.

Not that the morale implications of this war have not also resonated with me. Surely they have.

I do believe there are occasions to implement a prudent and judicious use for violence in this world. I am not knee-jerk emotional when it comes to war or the use of force as a matter of principle - neither for or against. But this war was not a justifiable use of force.
posted by tkchrist at 11:00 AM on January 4, 2006


But when someone constantly refers insidiously to a neo-con cabal and is opposed to the United States support of Israel, I am going to assume they are being obliquely, if not explicitly, anti-semetic.

That's literally the dumbest thing I've ever heard.
posted by bshort at 11:00 AM on January 4, 2006


fluffycreature: 'activist-judge' is code for 'gay'. Bush being opposed to activist judges means he hates the gays!

get your secret codewords down, dude!

Furthermore, his love for "strict constructivist" means that he's totally into S&M. So all the leather-bound types will go out and vote for him, except for the gay ones.
posted by delmoi at 11:02 AM on January 4, 2006


from what i understand, the deaths caused by suicide homicide bombers are collateral in nature.

ideally, dissent is expressed by the oppressed and recognized by the opressor. sometimes, though, your voice just isn't heard. make-shift bombs being cheaper than jets, aircraft carriers, state-trained soliders, long-range, video-guided missiles megaphones, the suicide bomber uses the explosion to gain the attention he can't otherwise get...

unfortunately, there are collateral casualties: the bomber and those in his/her vicinity. these are acceptable, though, as the greater good of expressing dissent and being heard is achieved.
posted by narwhal at 11:04 AM on January 4, 2006


ereshkigal, FASCINATING.

His primary rules were: never allow the public to cool off; never admit a fault or wrong; never concede that there may be some good in your enemy; never leave room for alternatives; never accept blame; concentrate on one enemy at a time and blame him for everything that goes wrong; people will believe a big lie sooner than a little one; and if you repeat it frequently enough people will sooner or later believe it. - OSS report page 51
posted by dougunderscorenelso at 11:05 AM on January 4, 2006


Dios/ParisParamusFilter: “I have the feeling about 60 percent of what you say is crap.”
posted by DawnSimulator at 11:06 AM on January 4, 2006


Look, I provided a number of actions that I find reprehensible by Sheehan. Only one example I used was her consistent and frequent comments regarding neo-con Cabals and her explicit opposition to Israel. Does that make her anti-Semetic? I don't know. Perhaps not. But perhaps. And given the number of times she says it, and the kind of things she says, it seems clear to me that she says those things with full intention that the reader will join her in her hatred of Israel. Someone who calls Bush the devil, America the terrorists, someone who calls terrorist freedom fighters---this is a woman who makes comments based on the effect she knows they will have in receptive audiences. In that light, her frequent mention of nefarious neo-con cabals seems fairly suggestive to me. Can one hate Israel and not be anti-Semetic? I suppose, but I think in this case it is unlikely. And if she is one of those people, then I am wrong about her. But I doubt it.
posted by dios at 11:07 AM on January 4, 2006


.
posted by loquax at 11:08 AM on January 4, 2006


So is it time to retitle this thread "Dios loses it", or what?

Can one lose what one did not possess to begin with?

Mu.
posted by loquacious at 11:09 AM on January 4, 2006


.
posted by Rothko at 11:09 AM on January 4, 2006


And given the number of times she says it, and the kind of things she says, it seems clear to me that she says those things with full intention that the reader will join her in her hatred of Israel.

My understanding is that she said it ONCE, and even that attribution is in doubt.

But if you repeat it often enough, people might believe you, right?
posted by ereshkigal45 at 11:10 AM on January 4, 2006


No offense, but I still haven't seen any actual evidence to suggest that she's an anti-Semite, or even anti-Israel beyond the single false quote. I'm not saying she isn't but simply asserting she is dosn't make it true.
posted by delmoi at 11:10 AM on January 4, 2006


But when someone constantly refers insidiously to a neo-con cabal and is opposed to the United States support of Israel, I am going to assume they are being obliquely, if not explicitly, anti-semetic.

OPEC provides financial aid to the Palenstinians through a Special Grant Account. If someone referred to OPEC as a cabal and criticized that support, would you think it's fair to assume that they must be an anti-Arab bigot?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 11:10 AM on January 4, 2006


I'm just amused reading the last 50 or comments in this thread that I am the one so often accused of making off-topic trolls.
posted by dios at 11:10 AM on January 4, 2006


MetaFilter: It is a moebius strip up in this place.
posted by bonobo at 11:11 AM on January 4, 2006


“I am lambasted for being critical of a person who is merely trying to state her opinion. It is a moebius strip up in this place.” - posted by dios

Grow a pair. I’m tired of people badmouthing metafilter in general when things get snarky.
Any idiot can find something wrong with anything - that’s why they’re idiots. Got a problem with them? Call it out. Or ignore it. Or work to make it better. Stop making it about yourself vs. all of us because it’s not everyone in metafilter.
I can’t believe you can’t generalize enough to see that you’re arguing against (from your characterization) Sheehan’s paranoid anti-America arguments with paranoid anti-metafilter arguments.

I do want to read your comments dios. I’d rather not hear about what a (metaphoric) asshole I am - by association - every time I do.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:11 AM on January 4, 2006


I don't know where to begin.
posted by brundlefly at 11:15 AM on January 4, 2006


If someone referred to OPEC as a cabal and criticized that support, would you think it's fair to assume that they must be an anti-Arab bigot?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 1:10 PM CST on January 4


Armitage, the key is the manner and frequency with which they say it, and the context with which they say it. We don't see things in isolation. Indeed, the very reason for someone like Sheehan to say what she says is that she is trying to trigger a response in her listeners. So I don't think your analogy is apt because it loses the context.

or even anti-Israel beyond the single false quote. I'm not saying she isn't but simply asserting she is dosn't make it true.
posted by delmoi at 1:10 PM CST on January 4


I'm not about to go do research for you. I provided you one article including quotes by her, and you deemed it insufficient. There was a wiki link including some other choice comments by her, many of which are absurd, but you still find it impossible that the boston globe piece was accurate. Fine by me. I have no way to respond to her comment that she didn't write it. I don't find that a compelling evidence on her part, but apparently you do. I think the evidence of her other comments is indicative that her e-mail was likely accurate. If you want to defend her, have at it.
posted by dios at 11:15 AM on January 4, 2006


this is a woman who makes comments based on the effect she knows they will have in receptive audiences

"I'd go with Sheehan only because she is such an opportunistic bitch."

"Next year, I'm making a Fuck AIDS Day post."

" What the fuck are you blathering about now amberglow? If you got off karl's nuts long enough..."

etc.
posted by Rothko at 11:17 AM on January 4, 2006


trying to give this some consideration, i wonder my response to an alternate situation: a mother who loses her child in iraq and uses that as the basis for a platform of supporting bush and his iraq policy. it confounds me a bit. on the one hand, i can see that on each side, one can argue that the mother's opinions could be formed on an emotional rather than rational basis (whether the mother is angry because she feels her child's life was wasted in a useless war, or the opposite, in which the mother feels angry that others feel her child's life was wasted in a useless war).

on the other hand, to echo bill maher a bit, we're in a war in which few of us pay any direct price; it's distant; it's word debates and political arguments for most of us. perhaps mothers who have lost children, wherever they come out on the debate over iraq, should have a louder public voice than most of us on that basis. it doesn't mean they are more correct on it because of their loss; i don't think it necessarily changes anyone's opinion, outside perhaps parents who would, empathetically, more closely examine their own beliefs and take a side.

so i'm not sure where i come down on it--a mother has a loss in this war that i do not personally endure, so her opinion might carry more moral weight than mine; yet the fact of the loss does not make her opinion necessarily correct, and such opinion might indeed be shaped by the magnitude of personal grief.

so i might try to settle on the side of giving respect to her expression of opinion and sympathy for her loss, and then arguing my own opinion without demonizing her for having one in opposition, or enobling her for having one in agreement.

and in either case, to characterize the mother as an 'opportunistic bitch'--even given some god- (or dios-)like intimate knowledge of her deepest motivations--i can't see serves any legitimate purpose.

and just because israel chooses to equate the state with religion doesn't mean everyone else must do so--and most jewish people i know don't seem to, in discussion at least--so the idea that anti-israel=anti-semitic is incredibly lame
posted by troybob at 11:17 AM on January 4, 2006


But when someone constantly refers insidiously to a neo-con cabal and is opposed to the United States support of Israel, I am going to assume they are being obliquely, if not explicitly, anti-semetic.

So those of us who are Jewish and are opposed to support for Israel and the current Israeli government are just, what? Self-hating?

The idea that you can't speak out against Isreal without being anti-semitic is even more silly than the idea that you can't speak out against Bush without being unamerican.
posted by malphigian at 11:18 AM on January 4, 2006


"Yes, he was killed for lies and for a PNAC [Project for the New American Century, a neoconservative think thank] Neo-Con agenda to benefit Israel."

Just to hammer it a little deeper, above is again the supposed sentence supposedly written by Sheehan in a supposed email.

Even disregarding the claim it was fake, is it anti-semitic? If I remember well, all reasonably deep analisys of the reasons to go into Iraq included "Protecting Israel" or, more to the point, "Helping consolidate Israel's position by creating a second democratic state in the region". And from US geopolitical interests, that is a sound strategic reason to depose Saddam and create a democracy in Iraq. I wonder when and how did it became "anti-semitic" to recall a point clearly stated in PNAC documents about global strategy.
posted by nkyad at 11:18 AM on January 4, 2006


the usually apolitical host

Have you ever watched David interview a reporter, author, politican, etc.? He almost always demonstrates an understanding and knowledge of the given news/political topic at hand, even to go far as to suggest his own political view. It usually goes something like this: He'll begin a question: "Now I don't know much about [topic], but as I understand it..." and proceeds to offer a surprisingly informed take followed by an on-target question. Granted, he's not blazing into deep analysis in interviewing, but CAN offer more than Leno's squeeky softball questions.
posted by jca at 11:19 AM on January 4, 2006


tkchrist: A world that WAS slanted , fairly or not, to my advantage making me and my families life as easy as ever seen in human history. Are you seriously imputing me for this "resonance?" Then, IMO, you would be a fool or hypocrite or both.
You are entitled to whichever motivations you desire, and I'm sure you have many with which I would more easily agree. Your remark seemed to reflect the ideology that any foreign policy is valid as long as it confers advantage to one's "own", which I gather is commonly held in the US. Perhaps I am foolish, but I think that behaviour between nations should adhere to higher standards.


Back on topic. Letterman's snark was pretty funny and well deserved, but how is our little cheerleading session any better than what O'Reilly does? I'm afraid we're playing right into his polarizing tactics.
posted by Popular Ethics at 11:22 AM on January 4, 2006


The idea that you can't speak out against Isreal without being anti-semitic is even more silly than the idea that you can't speak out against Bush without being unamerican.

Didn't you get the memo? That IS un-American.
posted by brundlefly at 11:26 AM on January 4, 2006


So just to be clear on the rules - personal attacks on posters coupled with general condescension and are allowed and indeed encouraged if said posters express opinions and beliefs that the majority disagree with. Correct?
posted by loquax at 11:27 AM on January 4, 2006


Letterman is a once-funny comedian whose ethos in politics as about as large as any other person's--no larger.

Sheehan is either an evil
individual who doesn't deserve to be able to hide behind the "shield" of her son's death; or she is a brainwashed stooge of the Left--IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER.

PS: I've just heard the Sheehan is trapped in a coal mine!
PS': Oh, I'm confusing stories....need to turn off the radio when writing comments here....
posted by ParisParamus at 11:27 AM on January 4, 2006


i think it's funny that we so thoroughly enjoy waxing logical after we make ad-hominem attacks in an effort to back them up.

this whole dios de-rail could've been avoided if he simply expressed his dissent with Sheehan's opinions & methods and cited his reasons initially.

instead, it's shoot first, cover your ass later...

and we all do it.

back on topic:

opportunism & Sheehan:
i think there's a fine line between stimulus response and poaching. to me, opportunism is some jungle cat waiting on a branch for the perfect chance to strike at its unsuspecting meal below. saddled with the grief of a dead child and demanding answers to your one nagging question "why?" seems more reflexive in nature.

that she's stayed on her soapbox seems motivated by the stimuli of an administration that doesn't acknowledge her or provide any worthwhile answers and a (portion of the) public that supports her and recognizes her position to, perhaps, make a difference.

whether or not every word she utters is perfectly agreeable/defendable is moot. haven't the apologists for our dear president taught us this over the past 5 years? "you can't hold the man responsible for his words... i mean... everyone makes mistakes."
posted by narwhal at 11:28 AM on January 4, 2006


Sheehan is either an evil individual who doesn't deserve to be able to hide behind the "shield" of her son's death; or she is a brainwashed stooge of the Left--IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER.

posted by ParisParamus at 11:27 AM PST on January 4 [!]


I'll see your false dichotomy and raise you a straw man.
posted by narwhal at 11:29 AM on January 4, 2006


There was a wiki link including some other choice comments by her, many of which are absurd, but you still find it impossible that the boston globe piece was accurate.

Dios, the Boston globe article itself said that they quote was at least disputed (and then it insinuated that 'she was the kind of person who would say something like that) but the article certainly doesn't prove she said it, or even tries to prove she said it.
posted by delmoi at 11:30 AM on January 4, 2006


And I said, I have no response to her "defense". I should try that "I didn't say that" defense. Next time I get called on a comment, I will just tell you that I didn't say it and an Admin stuck it in there. If you want me to prove to you that she said something in an e-mail that she sent to ABC, I can't do it. Sorry.
posted by dios at 11:32 AM on January 4, 2006


Sheehan is a very nice person who tragically lost her son in a war. We should be fair in considering her opinion.

We should also give equal consideration to the opinions of every other parent who has lost a child to this war, even if those parents have not chosen to make public and media appearances as a full-time hobby, right?

Letterman's job is to entertain you. He's doing it well by mocking O'Reilly.

O'Reilly's job is to entertain you by riling you up. He's doing it well by being a jerk.
posted by JekPorkins at 11:35 AM on January 4, 2006


I like Bret Easton Ellis’s take on Letterman in American Psycho as parody of 80s culture. There is this sort of vapidity to the show that I think is emulated by O’Reily’s transparent and soulless invectives. It’s anger and the facade of conviction masqarading as substance.

Which is probably why I had a hard time staying on topic.
They do seem two of a kind. The difference being Letterman is labeled as entertainment. But this meeting seems more the generation of a storm by two different air masses rather than anything meaningful.
Perhaps Letterman is irritated by O’Reily, perhaps not. But he doesn’t seem to be willing to throw down. Not too many people are.
Which, again, is why the few who do deserve some respect whether we are behind them or against them.
posted by Smedleyman at 11:35 AM on January 4, 2006


Paris:the unintentional deaths of kids /= the intentional deaths of them
Unless you are a dead kid. The use of the term intention is a bit difficult here. Our nation's actions were taken on the macro level with the foreknowledge that lots of kids would die. That we might prefer it if, by some wizard's spell, not single child were to die as a result of us blowing up and burning down places where they live does not absolve us morally.

We blow up babies because the loss is acceptable in the service of the greater good as we define it. The terrorists blow up babies because the loss is acceptable to the greater good as they define it. If the terrorists could get what they wanted without blowing up babies they wouldn't blow up babies. If the terrorists had the organization and resources that we have they would probably blow up babies more like we do. Would that make them right and us wrong?

Now my point is ultimately that the manner in which we blow up babies has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with our power. Any hope of taking the moral highroad on this one, and I believe we have it relative to the terrorists, is by having a superior definition of the greater good. However, that our morality is better than that of the terrorists is a small comfort, almost the smallest comfort I can imagine like siting in the Malebolge and priding myself on not being in Cocytus.

I think the US ought to have a higher threshold as far as what we're willing to kill babies for than we've displayed in this war. I would like our greater good to be better.


I liked this comment so much i am making it a double comment.
posted by srboisvert at 11:36 AM on January 4, 2006


So just to be clear on the rules - personal attacks on posters coupled with general condescension and are allowed and indeed encouraged if said posters express opinions and beliefs that the majority disagree with. Correct?

Dios is not expressing an opinion, assuming that's who you're referring to. He is asserting facts he cannot back up with any documented proof whatsoever, and his views are being appropriately torn up. If he hadn't said this first, perhaps he wouldn't have received the response he earned and so desperately wanted.
posted by Rothko at 11:37 AM on January 4, 2006


The idea that you can't speak out against Israel without being anti-semitic is even more silly than the idea that you can't speak out against Bush without being unamerican.

Cathy Young makes this argument all the time. I suspect Sheehan was just the latest convenient "example".
posted by longdaysjourney at 11:38 AM on January 4, 2006


elpapacito writes "An email ? An E-mail ?? A baby can falisify that."

Word. We used to use our 'l33t hacking skillz to e-mail girls from addresses at whitehouse.gov to impress them 15 years ago.
posted by Mitheral at 11:38 AM on January 4, 2006


If you want me to prove to you that she said something in an e-mail that she sent to ABC, I can't do it. Sorry.

Apology and retraction accepted. Sheenan indeed made no comments criticising the Jewish religion or the people who practice its faith.
posted by Rothko at 11:39 AM on January 4, 2006


15 Saudis
1 Egyptian
1 Lebanese
2 United Arab Emirates.

dios and o'rielly are right, americastan's grieving mothers should all shut the hell up and learn to accept their fate. we don't want no opportunistic bitches here.
posted by rodney stewart at 11:40 AM on January 4, 2006


What Rothko said. (Wow, I'm agreeing with Rothko against Dios. This must be Bizarro Mefi!) When you refer to someone who lost their son as an "opportunistic bitch" you've pretty much signed away your right to polite tea-and-biscuits discourse.
posted by unreason at 11:40 AM on January 4, 2006


-n, +h
posted by Rothko at 11:40 AM on January 4, 2006


It's ironic that O'Reilly said that we all have to be careful what we say... after all, he was the one who referred to illegal Mexican immigrants as "wetbacks" when talking to a Mexican-American politician. He is Mr. Falafel, for chrissakes!

I do wish that Letterman was more equipped ahead of time to debate him. The key to evicerating the man is pointing out his wild generalizations and inaccuracies, frankly.

Not every Iraqi who resists the US is a terrorist, just as not every US soldier is a saint. They *ALL* have a system of beliefs that they try to live with amidst a war. And the fact is that the conflict makes living up to them very difficult indeed.

If we feel that our morals and beliefs are superior to the Iraqis, and that they would benefit by adopting them, then let's call Iraq what it is... a crusade.

At least O'Reilly admitted what the situation is in Iraq:

"it's a screw-up, giant, massive..."

Looks like it's the giant shit sandwich for dinner, people. We all get a bite.
posted by insomnia_lj at 11:41 AM on January 4, 2006


Looks like it's the giant shit sandwich for dinner, people. We all get a bite.

*scoops his serving onto ParisParamus's plate*
posted by RakDaddy at 11:42 AM on January 4, 2006


So just to be clear on the rules - personal attacks on posters coupled with general condescension and are allowed and indeed encouraged if said posters express opinions and beliefs that the majority disagree with. Correct?

Dios opened it up with the words "opportunistic bitch" and then proceeded to be willfully thick for god knows how many comments; he gets no sympathy from me, here.
posted by furiousthought at 11:43 AM on January 4, 2006


I'm a little disconcerted that O'Reilly calls the Iraqi insurgency "terrorists" because they "blow up women and children." It seems to me that this hasn't been their tactic at all -- their tactic has been to blow up American soldiers and assassinate policemen and politicians. Have I missed news stories about Iraquis targeting women and children?

My guess would be that the United States military has blown up far more Iraqi woman and children that the Iraqis have.
posted by maxsparber at 11:43 AM on January 4, 2006


Look, the "Cindy Sheehan" media affair was good for one thing. One thing. She represented herself as the mother of a solider who died in what some believe to be a conflict with questionable motivations, planning, and execution. If, and only if she was able to demonstrate that she was a good public speaker with excellent reasoning should she have been able to purvey this into a soapbox for wide-reaching opinions on policy.

As it is, her sympathizers are forgetting the original point of her appearance in the media and bickering over all of the things that she's said that are totally and completely separate from the reason anyone gave her news coverage to begin with. What's more is that her detractors, including some who were sympathetic with her original point, are obsessing over details.

Who gives a shit what she thinks about Israel, immigrants, UFOs, or the price of milk? She threw away her legitimacy when she hopped off her original soapbox and there are much better individuals who are better spoken about these issues. She isn't being "run by far-left elements" as O'Reilly likes to claim, she's simply ruining her ability to convey an apolitical opinion by espousing views that O'Reilly rails against. She is far, far more useful for Bill O'Reilly than anyone else at this point, and bickering about what she may or may not believe gives him ammunition.

This, like the "Merry Christmas" versus "Happy Holidays" issue is another false controversy that O'Reilly loves. Things that people love to bicker about, but in the end amount to very little. Drop it and concentrate on the real issues instead of the controversy about things that may or may not have happened in the debate.
posted by mikeh at 11:44 AM on January 4, 2006


You'd think O'Reilly would be smarter than this but he's apparently as dense as an imploded star. Hey, wait, he IS an imploded star fascinated with his own excrement.

The comments in that link are pretty awful though, false patriots trying to shout down any voices of dissent. Patriotism isn't staying silent while our nation circles the drain.
posted by fenriq at 11:45 AM on January 4, 2006


Am I the only one who has trouble getting sound from Optamystic's link?
posted by bingo at 11:46 AM on January 4, 2006


George_Spiggot-Thanks for that link.
posted by OmieWise at 11:51 AM on January 4, 2006


Stop hurting america!
posted by blue_beetle at 11:56 AM on January 4, 2006


and regarding sheehan's comment that 9/11 is bush's pearl harbor:

i thought it was a pretty well known fact that we knew the attack on pearl harbor was imminent but that we allowed it to happen because 1) thwarting it would indicate that we had broken the german code (which was crucial to our eventual victory and certainly not something we wanted to expose...) and 2) the response of the american people to such an attack would galvanize us, etc.

given the shady practices of this administration, documented intentions toward iraq pre-9/11, and an amazingly efficient spin on the attacks that put us in iraq despite world-wide criticism of our intentions, i think there may be merit to a notion that a pearl harbor-esque parallel took place...

i'm not saying it must be so, but i think the contention deserves investigation rather than scorn.
posted by narwhal at 12:00 PM on January 4, 2006


ereshkigal

His enjoyment of the Berlin Olympic Games was completely spoilt when a fanatical Dutch woman who had achieved a personal presentation suddenly clasped him in two hefty arms and tried to kiss him in plain view of 100,000 spectators. Hitler could not regain his composure or stand the irreverent guffaws of foreign visitors, and left the Stadium.

There you go, can't stand the idea of losing control and looking/appearing less then superior, abovestanding. He took himself so seriously (tought he was so much superior) anything he did not appreciate was taken as offence, expecially if it's a "grossly vulgar" display of "affection" the way he tought it was....BUT in front of 100.000 spectators he instincitvely knew he couldn't have shown furious rage and loss of composure..he saw the rage coming and left the area, what a massively repressed person.

Similarly, take O'Reilly or Stern by the balls and the first one will order to "cut his mike ! cut his mike ! " the second one will try to belittle the antagonist with mixed success.

At least Stern somehow snaps into sanity when he recognizes he is a bufoon, an harlot and an idiot when he's being one. He doesn't take himself too seriously all the time.

Irriverence, ridicule being the key to dismantle self-aggrandizing i'm-holier-then-thou overgrown kids ; negating attention being what they fear most.
posted by elpapacito at 12:00 PM on January 4, 2006


Ugh. I canceled my cable so I wouldn't have to see that ugly opportunistic talentless sycophant ever again but now it seems like I'm going to have to cancel my internet as well. What is America's obsession with this loser? Are there really that many people out there so scared shitless by reality? These really are the darkest days in American history - and for reasons not even apparent to us yet I fear.
posted by any major dude at 12:00 PM on January 4, 2006


I'm fairly convinced at this point that Dios and PP are just two microphones placed in front of the same asshole.
posted by stenseng at 12:03 PM on January 4, 2006


When you refer to someone who lost their son as an "opportunistic bitch" you've pretty much signed away your right to polite tea-and-biscuits discourse.
posted by unreason


haha , so true. this reminds me of the Lt. governor fiasco some screwed up stuff was said about certain family members in that thread also.

not to reopen that can o' worms , but you take my point.
posted by nola at 12:03 PM on January 4, 2006


fluffycreature asks:

Has anyone seen a website that breaks down the method of argument that O'Reilly uses? He is good at it, and before you know it you're defending some position that is undefendable.

I haven't, although I suppose you could Google it.

What makes O'Reilly an pretty difficult to debate is his habit of making very bad, and often personal arguments that are difficult to respond to quickly, and that put his opponents on the defensive. The only way to win an argument with him is to understand right off that there's not going to be an argument, but just a pissing contest, and ignore O'Reilly's argumentative claims.

Donahue's take-down of O'Reilly (.wmv) is a great example of O'Reilly's tactics. O'Reilly raises his voice such that he's almost screaming at Donahue, accusing Donahue of "denigrating" the military service of O'Reilly's nephew. Now, this is absurd, since Donahue hasn't said the slightest thing to denigrate O'Reilly's nephew. But Donahue was smart enough to avoid saying "Wait. . . .wait, I didn't insult your nephew!" Which would only have put Donahue off track and trapped him in a defensive line of argument.

Likewise, O'Reilly point about "freedom fighters" is a red herring. Did Sheehan refer to Iraqi insurgents as such? And in what context? I don't know, and neither did letterman. But the issue is a red herring, since Letterman and O'Reilly were discussing Iraqis killing American soldiers. , some of whom also intentionally kill civilians, and some of whom don't. And There's certainly an argument to be made that those who oppose an illegal war like this one *are* freedom fighters, in an important sense, at least those who do not target civilians.

I mean, O'Reilly's arguing here that Sheehan's word-choice when discussing the Iraqi fighters invalidates her opposition to the war? Rather than make a winnable but trivial argument about diction or the relative importance of diction, Letterman makes the smart choice and just observes that the argument is crap and moves on. Most of his viewers, I'm sure, had already smelled O'Reilly's bullshit for themselves.
posted by washburn at 12:04 PM on January 4, 2006


any major dude: you cancelled cable to avoid one show? I guess if you were addicted to watching him or something, then such drastic measures might be rationalized somehow. Otherwise, aren't you just being irrational and extremist?
posted by JekPorkins at 12:04 PM on January 4, 2006


Have I missed news stories about Iraquis targeting women and children?

Yes, you have. There have been a number of attacks that only targeted Iraqis, mostly with the putative intent of polarizing religious groups.
posted by spiderwire at 12:11 PM on January 4, 2006


I'm fairly convinced at this point that Dios and PP are just two microphones placed in front of the same asshole.

One for the high ranges and one for the low ranges?

Sort of like a woofer and a tweeter in reverse?

*ahem*
posted by spiderwire at 12:12 PM on January 4, 2006


dios:

I'm just amused reading the last 50 or comments in this thread that I am the one so often accused of making off-topic trolls.

yours was the first to get them really riled up on this thread. it only takes one to get the place stinking worse than a flaming handbag full of shit.
posted by moz at 12:12 PM on January 4, 2006


Much much much too late to bring this back on track.

Nevertheless, I was just thinking about how interesting it is that entertainers seem to be saying the things that other media figures won't say these days. Stewart, Letterman, either decided their core audience would find their 'saying what we're thinking' comments entertaining, or decided that saying it was more important than pandering to their audience.

It reminds me of the whole entertainers-can't-have-political-leanings nonsense that goes on these days, where Alex Baldwin and George Clooney (f'rinstance) get blasted for dealing with politics, but Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwartzenneger (f'rinstance) get praised for dealing with politics.

Somewhere along the line, I think we all forgot that there are only two ways for a person to get power and a voice these days -- fame or fortune. So if you're poor and disenfranchised, your biggest opportunity for getting that power and voice is to become a celebrity, and so often it is the actors who represent the masses more than we'd like to admit...many are just like you and I, except they've got some power and a voice.

Eh, just rambling at this point. On to the next thread. :)
posted by davejay at 12:13 PM on January 4, 2006


I'm fairly convinced at this point that Dios and PP are just two microphones...

Dios is actually much more intelligent and a far better writer than Paris (who, on non-political threads, is actually a pretty decent guy). Dios's points are usually well-reasoned, articulate, and for the most part, he stays away from polemics and invective unless he's been seriously provoked. Not sure what happened right out the gate on this thread, maybe he's just having a bad day or harbors some deep seated hatred for women in floppy hats.
posted by psmealey at 12:14 PM on January 4, 2006


I don't think you need to watch O'Reilly's show to know he's a manipulative, exceptionalist and lying piece of shit.

Amen. Every night of his "war on Xmas" coverage sounded like a chicken with its head cut off. He definitely knows how to get viewers to tune in.
posted by cass at 12:14 PM on January 4, 2006


I've never heard anyone refer to Iraqis as freedom fighters
posted by mathowie

serious question: Has Cindy Sheehan referred to Iraqi insurgents as freedon fighters?
posted by theora55


Right or wrong, Sheehan has, which is why O'Reilly brought it up I'm sure.

In all seriousness (and I love the guy), letterman says everything O'Reilly says is crap, yet admits to NEVER watching the show.

Any other topic on mefi and we'd be attacking letterman, but I guess we'll let it slide this time.
posted by justgary at 12:14 PM on January 4, 2006


So just to be clear on the rules - personal attacks on posters coupled with general condescension and are allowed and indeed encouraged if said posters express opinions and beliefs that the majority disagree with. Correct?
posted by loquax at 2:27 PM EST on January 4 [!]



"What the fuck are you blathering about now amberglow? If you got off karl's nuts long enough..."


Nothing says sincere concern and heartfelt loss for the people who paid the ultimate sacrifice like a pathetically shrill partisan MeFi post.


The historic nature of this day, and the potential for being a hinge moment in the life of 15 million people seems to be something that is entitled to some degree of optimism. But then again, this is Metafilter.

Thanks. I was wondering when Metafilter was going to discuss torture. It's such an important topic that I can't believe we haven't brought it up before.

Thanks. I was wondering when Metafilter was going to be bring up how bad Christianity is. It's such an important topic that I can't believe it's never been brought up here before.



Yeah, it looks that way loquax. dios does well in this regard. He often opens a post with a snide insult to the entire membership of Metafilter and if a post opposes his view, it's pathetically shrill and partisan.
posted by juiceCake at 12:17 PM on January 4, 2006


Cindy Sheehan is a true American hero. If only we had 100 like her. Unafraid of the insular political scum that govern the US, she got back to basics by confronting Georgie McFluff at his palatial "ranch" and woke the country up to the reality of the horrific mess in Iraq. My hat is off to her and again, if we only had 100, nay, 1000 more like her.
posted by telstar at 12:19 PM on January 4, 2006


justgary:

to be fair i don't think it would be correct to say i watch the show (i don't even have a tv...), but i've seen it on tvs in bars and other public places and even lingered while scanning the channels in a hotel room. while my direct interaction with his program is considerably limited, i've caught enough quotes and transcripts second-hand to feel like i could make a pretty reasonable estimate as to how much of what he says is crap.
posted by narwhal at 12:20 PM on January 4, 2006


Dios's points are usually well-reasoned, articulate, and for the most part...

...wrong, when someone does any cursory research. Being articulate is no replacement for accuracy.
posted by Rothko at 12:21 PM on January 4, 2006


PS: I've just heard the Sheehan is trapped in a coal mine!

At which point, the audience is expected to roll over with a hearty laugh, after which the comedian will proceed to tell brilliant jokes about prisoners sodomised with light bulbs.

Please let's have more of this, this is exactly why I read metafilter, for such sophisticated humour!
posted by funambulist at 12:27 PM on January 4, 2006




If, and only if she was able to demonstrate that she was a good public speaker with excellent reasoning should she have been able to purvey this into a soapbox for wide-reaching opinions on policy.

You mean, like Bush?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:29 PM on January 4, 2006


Dios's fetish dream.
posted by Mr Bluesky at 12:39 PM on January 4, 2006


But when someone constantly refers insidiously to a neo-con cabal and is opposed to the United States support of Israel, I am going to assume they are being obliquely, if not explicitly, anti-semetic.

And when I see someone make a remark like that I'm going to assume - no wait, know - that I'm dealing with a blithering halfwit whose relationship with the concepts of logic and fairness are about as intimate as the relationship of my DM's toecap with Dick Cheney's gonads: i.e., not nearly as close as it should be. Also, learn to spell "semitic", you ambulatory cacksack.
posted by Decani at 12:40 PM on January 4, 2006


Is. Whose relationship with... IS.
posted by Decani at 12:41 PM on January 4, 2006


When you refer to someone who lost their son as an "opportunistic bitch" you've pretty much signed away your right to polite tea-and-biscuits discourse.

Are you crazy? What is wrong with you? What's wrong with all of you? Since when is debate not enough? Passionate argument not enough? No, you have to humiliate your opponent. Taunt him after every comment. What gives you the right to taint the website that I love with trash talk and taunting? What gives you the right to call yourselves metafilter members and act like punks? You say he was jawing too? So? You can't show some class? Act like a champion? You owe me 500 push-ups apiece. On the line. Now.
posted by loquax at 12:41 PM on January 4, 2006


Sheehan is either an evil individual who doesn't deserve to be able to hide behind the "shield" of her son's death; or she is a brainwashed stooge of the Left--IT'S ONE OR THE OTHER.

I'd almost think you were being sarcastic with this comment but then I know you weren't which makes me sad.
posted by aaronscool at 12:42 PM on January 4, 2006




Not to derail from the derail, but I was just reading about the whole Letterman/O'Reilly thingamajig on Free Republic, and was very tickled to see that his cheerleaders there refer to O'Reilly as BOR.

BOR.

Once again, BOR.
posted by stinkycheese at 12:43 PM on January 4, 2006


I'm still wondering why Dios was excoriated for calling Sheehan a bitch. If she were male, and Dios had said "opportunistic prick", would he have been pelted with accusations of being a misandrist? I doubt it.

The video was meh. Letterman could have done far better, and actually let O'Reilly score off him at the end when he admitted he didn't watch his show. Granted, Letterman's intention was to show his scorn for O'Reilly's silly program, but it took some of the omph out of it. The pencil in the coffee was the bee's knees, though.

If people seriously wanted to take down the Coulters, O'Reillys, et als, all it would take is a couple of days in an editing suite, but no one has seriously tried (At least in the mainstream, I believe.).
Until then, I'll take these little fracases as seriously as I take a ringside interview on Monday Night RAW.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 12:45 PM on January 4, 2006


I think it says a lot about where America is at these days (North American continent between Canada and Mexico) that both conservative and liberal sites are posting this "meeting of the minds" as if "their side" clearly won the "debate." [Argh! My fingers just cramped up from all the curly quotes!]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:48 PM on January 4, 2006


Jekporkins wrote:

any major dude: you cancelled cable to avoid one show? I guess if you were addicted to watching him or something, then such drastic measures might be rationalized somehow. Otherwise, aren't you just being irrational and extremist?

I canceled cable because I'm a news junky and was disgusted by the way all cable news channels portrayed important news and events as nothing more than entertainment and would reduce the salient issues into he said she said 20 second soundbites. I did it to take a stand. These organizations are created not to inform the public but to turn a profit. Now I have nothing against journalism turning a profit, but when it is done at the expense of the truth I have big problems with that and have retaliated with the only weapon I have - my money. I refuse to give evena fraction of a cent to punks like O'Reilly, Matthews, Russert, Hannity, Novak etc. These people are the real enemies of democracy in my mind, they are supposed to be the watchdogs yet they act more like these guys.
posted by any major dude at 12:50 PM on January 4, 2006


Right about here I thought this thread may attain legendary status, but Jeezus, this is better that had hoped.
posted by JeffK at 12:50 PM on January 4, 2006


Very good article, Armitage Shanks. Exactly my thoughts on the war.. Not only were we not able to catch 1 Bin Laden, we may have created 1000 other Bin Laden clones.

Me asking why this happened does NOT make me a lefty. Honestly, I bet even righties are probably curious to know why but are scared to death to ask. The furious attack by the FAR right is pretty similar to the way the Church would react in Old Europe. EXILE them if they don't believe what we believe or even question it. I'm sick of it. As of now in their eyes you're a liberal/unamerican/outright terrorist if you believe that the Iraq War was questionable/Pro-choice/Believe in evolution/Don't believe in "intelligent design"/question anything a republican is doing.

Criticism != Unpatriotic.. We all have our own minds to think and believe what we perceive as true. So people don't attack others with differing opinion, just speak reason and talk on the issue. This is EXACTLY what the O'RLY factor and show of its ilk lacks.
posted by pez_LPhiE at 12:51 PM on January 4, 2006


. . . than I had hoped.

Crap.
posted by JeffK at 12:51 PM on January 4, 2006


Still waiting for dios or peepee to provide a logical and/or coherent response to JHarris ....[statement about anything ever]
posted by nofundy
posted by papakwanz at 12:53 PM on January 4, 2006


You owe me 500 push-ups apiece. On the line. Now.

Okay, your offense is causing me to try to find that bit in a very nearly unreadable movie transcript with 60,000 flash popups. :: icy stare ::
posted by furiousthought at 12:54 PM on January 4, 2006


(sorry!)
posted by loquax at 12:56 PM on January 4, 2006


“...What's wrong with all of you?”- posted by loquax

Having defended dios on more than a few occasions I again take exception to being lumped in with those who consistiently choose to hurl invectives at him.
The opposition arguments are not all snark. It’s as simple as that. I happen to enjoy reading dios’ comments. But he’s not John the Baptist - the lone voice crying out in the wilderness. Other people get shit on too and it’s not suddenly a pecking party when someone else disagrees. It may seem like it sometimes, and I certainly recognize validity in the observation that some do snark unfairly at dios and some others jump on the bandwagon - but again - I take exception with the generalization that we all do.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:09 PM on January 4, 2006


(just a line from a movie, of course I did not mean to address that to everyone posting here)
posted by loquax at 1:11 PM on January 4, 2006


Letterman's a sorry-assed EastCoast Liberal whiner.

Cut the good-ole-midwestern-boy bullcrap already Dave, you're not fooling anybody.
posted by HTuttle at 1:13 PM on January 4, 2006


Dios' blathers: Only one example I used was her consistent and frequent comments regarding neo-con Cabals and her explicit opposition to Israel. Does that make her anti-Semetic? I don't know.

Armitage, the key is the manner and frequency with which they say it, and the context with which they say it. We don't see things in isolation. Indeed, the very reason for someone like Sheehan to say what she says is that she is trying to trigger a response in her listeners. So I don't think your analogy is apt because it loses the context.

Christ, there are few things that make my blood boil more than the Neo-Conservative/Anti-Semetic talking point that's been making the rounds since the invasion of Iraq. It's insulting on a number of levels, not least of which is it's appropriation of wholesale genocide to justify a political end. In this situation, hiding behind the skirt of religious persecution is either the act of a coward, a cynic or both. The state of Israel and the Jewish religion are distinctly separated in discussions of the Iraq war by all but a few Fred Phellps-types, who do it simply for money and attention.

There are plenty of things we in the US spend our collective monies on that I would rather we didn't. These things include jailing drug addicts, Plan Colombia, support for Uzbekistan, the embargo of Cuba, political support for Saudi Arabia and monetary support for Israel. Now, does my distaste for spending tax money to jail drug addicts make me pro-drug addict? My support for Cuba pro-Communist? Plan Colombia, anti-American? Uzebekistan, pro-terrorist? Of course not. So why is it that because I don't support a blank check-program for Israeli foreign aid make me an anti-semite? Why is it that calling someone a Neo-Conservatives ( it's modern use, which you'll remember, was coined by Irving Kristol at the AEI after the first Gulf war.) is anti-semitisim in disguise? Simple answer - it isn't.

A big "fuck you" to Dios for propagating that old line of religion-bating bullshit.

Not only were we not able to catch 1 Bin Laden, we may have created 1000 other Bin Laden clones.

1000 Bin Laden clones? Exactly how many 6'4", educated, billionaire playboys who descended Saudi Royalty and write like 8th century caliphates are there? Sorry, but bin Laden is a unique guy, and while I have no doubt our actions it will create tens of thousands of people would would like to be the next bin Laden, they lack the power or influence.
posted by SweetJesus at 1:15 PM on January 4, 2006


Letterman's a sorry-assed EastCoast Liberal whiner.

Cut the good-ole-midwestern-boy bullcrap already Dave, you're not fooling anybody.
posted by HTuttle at 1:13 PM PST on January 4 [!]


finally!

all this ad-ho against dear sheehan has taken our focus off the much worse letterman.

damn you, letterman! you opportunistic prick! making money peddling your humor like a five-dollar whore!!
posted by narwhal at 1:31 PM on January 4, 2006


I'm still wondering why Dios was excoriated for calling Sheehan a bitch. If she were male, and Dios had said "opportunistic prick", would he have been pelted with accusations of being a misandrist? I doubt it.

Right on brother! It's politically correctness gone mad ©, I'm telling ya!

Bill O'Reilly is oppressed by Letterman, the troops are oppressed by Cindy Sheehan, so it only makes sense 'passionate'-debating right wing males are oppressed by some superfeminist double standard disguised as civility. All these threats to freedom of speech... someone will have to start a war to liberate speech country.

Now, serioiusly, I don't particularly think the point is to establish how mysoginistic it is to refer to a woman as a bitch or how different it is to referring to a man as a prick; I think the point is more along the lines that there may have been other slightly classier ways of expressing dislike for that woman and/or her ideas, perhaps also taking into consideration her personal loss (which sure doesn't make her sacred and untouchable, but may warrant just a little humanity? and if one thinks she is exploiting her dead son, then how is it more respectful of him, to indirectly call him a son of a bitch?), and, most of all if the person expressing that dislike then acts like he's the Emperor of Japan and demands everyone to be polite and civil to him or else he's being persecuted. It's not rocket science, really...
posted by funambulist at 1:32 PM on January 4, 2006


well... this turned into a shitty thread.
posted by edgeways at 1:34 PM on January 4, 2006


Letterman's a sorry-assed EastCoast Liberal whiner.
Gosh, H, I think you might want to check your facts a little more.
"David Michael Letterman was born on April 12, 1947 in Indianapolis to Harry Letterman, a florist, and Dorothy, a church secretary.

He went to School 55 and then to Broad Ripple High School and worked as a stock boy at Atlas Supermarket.

After graduating from high school in 1965 he studied radio and television at Ball State University, where he earned a B.A. in telecommunications in 1969.

He worked at several radio stations in the Indianapolis area and then on television as an anchor and weatherman for WTHR (Channel 13). He also hosted both a children's show called Clover Power which featured 4-H members and a late-night movie show which he called Freeze-Dried Movies where he performed stunts such as blowing up a cardboard replica of the television station at the close of the show.

After four years in local television and radio Letterman realized he needed a larger audience in order to find a place for his brand of comedy. In 1975 Letterman moved to Los Angeles"

I mean, that's the West coast there, you know?
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:34 PM on January 4, 2006


I'm curious - what does 'BOR' referred to O'Reilly mean?
posted by funambulist at 1:38 PM on January 4, 2006


For the record, I don't think dios always deserves a pile-on by any means, but in this thread, ya know...

To finally say something apropos to the topic, such as it is, Fox is getting completely ripped off by Bill O' Reilly. He's basically managed to turn sitting in a rocking chair yelling get offa my lawn into a career. I suppose Andy Rooney paved the way but still. Anyway, here is what they should do.

American Pundit.

Yeah, it's a reality show. You get 50 batshit old retirees ranting about things, and have a contest, and the winner gets to rant on Fox News for a year. It's much more cost-effective! And entertaining for the audience. I mean, who knows what these guys will rant about. Flouridation, the gold standard, short shorts, some crap that went out of style in 1980, it's gold. If they rant about something really terrible you get a nice big scandal to drive up ratings. You also get the neat conceptual unification of Fox's media exploitation arm with its entertainment exploitation arm. I'm talking magic here.
posted by furiousthought at 1:38 PM on January 4, 2006


“(just a line from a movie, of course I did not mean to address that to everyone posting here)”- posted by loquax

Ok then young fella.


“...while I have no doubt our actions it will create tens of thousands of people would would like to be the next bin Laden, they lack the power or influence.” - posted by SweetJesus

He’s got a lot of brothers...
As far as influence - real influence comes from controling the fluctuations in oil prices. This can be achived by bombing pipelines. Any small organization with enough ‘splosives and savvy can make enough $ to gain power and force themselves to be delt with.

Didn’tcha ever read “Dune”?

I kind of like how O’Reily, et.al. boil it down to bombing women and children, etc.

9/11 was just to get this kind of attention from the U.S. and stir up enough chaos to make bombing the pipelines legitimate (since you don’t want to do it to a fellow arab). At least that’d be why I’d do it.

But what do I know? I’m not on T.V.
Or in M1-6.
Jesus, seriously - how can a person given that amount of attention be capable of that level of stupidity?

...hmm...sort of answers itself given some of the communication dynamic we’ve witnessed.
posted by Smedleyman at 1:41 PM on January 4, 2006


I'm curious - what does 'BOR' referred to O'Reilly mean?

Bill O'Reilly -- who is a bore.
posted by ericb at 1:42 PM on January 4, 2006


BOR = Bill O'Reilly

Again, BOR.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:42 PM on January 4, 2006


Jinx!
posted by stinkycheese at 1:42 PM on January 4, 2006


I'm curious - what does 'BOR' referred to O'Reilly mean?
posted by funambulist at 1:38 PM PST on January 4 [!]


as in Bill O'Reilly?

or as in "why is BOR funny?"
posted by narwhal at 1:42 PM on January 4, 2006


And again, BOR.
posted by stinkycheese at 1:43 PM on January 4, 2006


What gives you the right to call yourselves metafilter members and act like punks? You say he was jawing too? So? You can't show some class? Act like a champion?

As if these kinds of threads are ever a high-minded discourse of Socratic dialogue. Who made you hall monitor?
posted by jalexei at 1:43 PM on January 4, 2006


man! we tackled that question! =)

next!
posted by narwhal at 1:44 PM on January 4, 2006


davejay writes "Somewhere along the line, I think we all forgot that there are only two ways for a person to get power and a voice these days -- fame or fortune. So if you're poor and disenfranchised, your biggest opportunity for getting that power and voice is to become a celebrity, and so often it is the actors who represent the masses more than we'd like to admit...many are just like you and I, except they've got some power and a voice."

I never though about that before but it's very true. I wonder what political debate would be like if more A list celebs didn't have to worry about being Dixie Chicked just for speaking their minds.
posted by Mitheral at 1:44 PM on January 4, 2006


Reading the comments below the video and transcript shows us that MeFi isn't anywhere close to the horrible place dios believes it to be.
posted by juiceCake at 1:47 PM on January 4, 2006


stinkycheese writes "Jinx!"

A triple Jinx and the call of Jinx! all in the same minute, we're quick on the button today.
posted by Mitheral at 1:48 PM on January 4, 2006


*blows smoke off end of barrel*
posted by stinkycheese at 1:50 PM on January 4, 2006


When will O'Reilly be on the Johnny Carson show?
posted by Postroad at 1:56 PM on January 4, 2006


funambulist: At first I thought you were agreeing with me, but then... that © hurt, man! Hurt.
Kidding aside, I do see your point. It just seemed like some folks were saying "And not only is Dios wrong politically, argumentative, and a bad dancer, HE HATES WOMEN, TOO!"
It was just adding something that I didn't feel was there to further discredit an opponent's point of view.

posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:58 PM on January 4, 2006


Letterman's a sorry-assed EastCoast Liberal whiner

What does that even mean?

What exactly makes him a whiner? What is a whiner? Is it a person who complains about things that they do not like?

Is Bill O'Reilly not a whiner because he shouts when he doesn't like something? Is being a whiner just mean that a person is using his indoor voice when discussing something he does not like?
posted by flarbuse at 2:01 PM on January 4, 2006


9/11 was just to get this kind of attention from the U.S. and stir up enough chaos to make bombing the pipelines legitimate (since you don’t want to do it to a fellow arab). At least that’d be why I’d do it.

And why wouldn't the Wahabbists want to bomb other Arabs? They do, of course, and this fight has little to do with ethnicity and everything to do with religion. Wahabbists hate apostate Muslims more than they hate Westerners, be they Arab, African or Philippino - it makes no difference. We're witnessing not a battle between the East and West, but rather a battle between moderate and radical Islamists.

He’s got a lot of brothers...
As far as influence - real influence comes from controlling the fluctuations in oil prices. This can be archived by bombing pipelines. Any small organization with enough ‘explosives and savvy can make enough $ to gain power and force themselves to be dealt with.


Yes, and the bin Laden family, with the exception of Osama, is uniformly pro-Western, or at least pro-Western money. The bin Laden group just got 26 billion dollar contract from the Saudi government (the same government Osama rails against) to build King Abdullah Economic city in SA. They're the largest construction group in the Middle East. Osama's brothers are all far too comfortable with their billions of dollars and regional power to go skulk around in caves and bomb pipelines.

The larger problem of decentralized terrorism is a different issue. Clausewitz talked about power being the sum of means and will, and of course, he has been proved correct. What's to stop someone with a radical agenda and access to small arms from blowing up an oil pipeline? Well, nothing really. Small arms are too easy to get, and large countries lack the political will to clamp down on these fringe groups and the profoundly disgruntled young men contained within (why are the profoundly disgruntled? A whole different discussion...)

But the goals of these Wahabbist groups is not to get rich and powerful by controlling the market prices of oil - you give them too much credit. They have no goal beyond the destruction and subjugation of their enemies.
posted by SweetJesus at 2:03 PM on January 4, 2006


dios: "...But when someone constantly refers insidiously to a neo-con cabal and is opposed to the United States support of Israel, I am going to assume they are being obliquely, if not explicitly, anti-semetic. You don't have to agree. But it shows in my mind an anti-semetic viewpoint intended to suggest a nefarious control by Jewish people; one that is intended to be triggered in the mind of the reader..."

dios: "...Only one example I used was her consistent and frequent comments regarding neo-con Cabals and her explicit opposition to Israel. Does that make her anti-Semetic? I don't know. Perhaps not. But perhaps..."

You don't know? Perhaps, but perhaps not?

You are so fucking worthless.

dios: "I should try that "I didn't say that" defense. Next time I get called on a comment, I will just tell you that I didn't say it and an Admin stuck it in there..."

At this point, I bet you wish you could.
posted by prostyle at 2:06 PM on January 4, 2006


Yes, and the bin Laden family, with the exception of Osama, is uniformly pro-Western, or at least pro-Western money. The bin Laden group just got 26 billion dollar contract from the Saudi government (the same government Osama rails against) to build King Abdullah Economic city in SA. They're the largest construction group in the Middle East. Osama's brothers are all far too comfortable with their billions of dollars and regional power to go skulk around in caves and bomb pipelines.

posted by SweetJesus at 2:03 PM PST on January 4 [!]


don't forget the hot bin laden
posted by narwhal at 2:09 PM on January 4, 2006


That's 1000 push-ups for you Mr. prostyle - you want to go for the grand prize?
posted by loquax at 2:10 PM on January 4, 2006


Keith Olbermann once again bestows a "Worst Person" award [with videoclip] upon Bill O'Reilly, this time because O'Reilly threatened to "get into" the "lives" of The New York Times' Frank Rich and Bill Keller.
posted by ericb at 2:21 PM on January 4, 2006


And not a single peep from any right-wing MeFite in the Jack Abramoff thread.

Veeeery iiiiiinteresting. Well, at least they know how to pick their fights.

This thread has been quite entertaining!

BOR, indeed.
posted by zoogleplex at 2:24 PM on January 4, 2006


Comment #301! WooHoo!!
posted by JeffK at 2:37 PM on January 4, 2006


BOR = Bucket o' Rectum
posted by afx114 at 2:37 PM on January 4, 2006


What can one say about Abramoff? He should go to jail. Anyone convicted of bribery or accepting bribes should go to jail, or at least be impeached or fired. Democrat, Republican, Liberal, Conservative. Does anybody disagree with this? Not sure a lack of comments from certain people in this thread in another thread is indicative of anything in particular. Personally, I'm just as disgusted (and unsurprised) by this as I am by adscam.
posted by loquax at 2:49 PM on January 4, 2006


it looked like letterman sneakily dipped his pen into o'reilly's coffee cup right before he came on. i'm hopeful a beforehand encounter with an orifice was also involved, any ideas however on what that thing was really about?
posted by rodney stewart at 2:55 PM on January 4, 2006


300! Taking bets on 400 now.
posted by boo_radley at 2:57 PM on January 4, 2006


“And why wouldn't the Wahabbists want to bomb other Arabs? They do, of course, and this fight has little to do with ethnicity and everything to do with religion.” - posted by SweetJesus

I didn’t mention wahabbists. It was a general statement about strategy. But this doesn’t have shit to do with religion, that - as usual - is the cover story. It’s got everything to do with power and oil.

The brothers statement was tongue in cheek. Should have been a bit more tart I suppose.


“We're witnessing not a battle between the East and West, but rather a battle between moderate and radical Islamists.. etc.”

Yeah, I read Foreign Affairs too.

I don’t know if anyone’s goals are that simple, but I’m taking about the big picture here.
I want the U.S. in Iraq if I’m on the other side. By the same token if I’m in the U.S. I want to have a toehold in the region. Iraq is a good choice for both sides.
Looking at the full spectrum, the U.S. has lost a good deal of respect. Whether we win every battle or not, we’re losing that part of it. Once we occupy, it becomes a matter of incitement. Simple enough. Doing it under Saddam was less of an option. I’d rather see the U.S. take the hits and lose the money than nearly anyone else. Partly because the U.S. is Satan and tears shit up elsewhere, but also because they have the troops and the money to do it nearly indefinately. Can’t keep jiggling the price if no one is there to reset the stability.
Religion and even U.S. hatred is just a force motivator though.
Really anyone in on this particular game is going to make money. Even if you’re a U.S. politician.

Pure speculation really, but if you’re going to skim a casino, you need casino workers to help you do it.
And everyone seems to overlook that you need a government there in the first place to lay down a tax law to dodge using the skim in the first place.
It doesn’t make the government complicit of course, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t some officials who might be cut in on the action.

Again - just speculation.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:05 PM on January 4, 2006


Speculation as to the details that is. The precepts are solid.
posted by Smedleyman at 3:05 PM on January 4, 2006


BOR! Bill O'Reilly! Duh! I feel so stupid now...I swear I thought it must be one of those acronym-coded phrases I'd never heard before.

thanks ericb, stinkycheese and nerwhal for the triple reply :)
posted by funambulist at 3:12 PM on January 4, 2006


we knew the attack on pearl harbor was imminent but that we allowed it to happen because 1) thwarting it would indicate that we had broken the german code

"German?"

"Forget it, he's on a roll."
posted by forrest at 3:20 PM on January 4, 2006


It reminds me of the whole entertainers-can't-have-political-leanings nonsense that goes on these days, where Alex Baldwin and George Clooney (f'rinstance) get blasted for dealing with politics, but Ronald Reagan and Arnold Schwartzenneger (f'rinstance) get praised for dealing with politics.

Err, raygun and arnie got plenty of (well deserved) bashing.
posted by delmoi at 3:29 PM on January 4, 2006


t just seemed like some folks were saying "And not only is Dios wrong politically, argumentative, and a bad dancer, HE HATES WOMEN, TOO!"

Hmmm,I suppose that might have been the intent; on the other hand...

It was just adding something that I didn't feel was there to further discredit an opponent's point of view.

... it might just be sauce for the gander, huh.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 3:29 PM on January 4, 2006


Priceless.
posted by mkultra at 3:31 PM on January 4, 2006


Alvy Ampersand: well ok, fair enough, I can see your point too. I wouldn't necessarily read "that bitch" as mysoginistic myself, it's an insult directed at that specific person, but it's also really pathetic.

Oh, I forgot to quote the holders of the ©... but there's just too many of them!
posted by funambulist at 3:33 PM on January 4, 2006


If that's "losing it" then Letterman needs to adjust his medication.

I loved O'Reilly 's reference to "M one 6" (better known to those who don't have their head up their ass as "M eye 6").
posted by 327.ca at 3:41 PM on January 4, 2006


This is why it is impossible to find an ounce of credibility with a lot of you who suggest your problem with me is anything other than politically charged.

Shut the fuck up, you opportunistic bitch.
posted by I Love Tacos at 3:47 PM on January 4, 2006


she is such an opportunistic bitch who would use her son for her own batshit crazy political purposes.

She's using her son for political purposes? Kind of like that John Walsh guy who "used" his son's murder for the batshit political purpose of creating a tv show that would help find murderers? When a person's child dies, especially when it is in a manner perceived as unfair and avoidable, some parents focus on trying to prevent something similar from happening to other victims.

I find her couragous for trying to make a difference and possibly save other soldiers from the same fate as her son. She could have just hit the bottle instead.
posted by sacrilicious at 3:50 PM on January 4, 2006


I am a liberal, but I think O'Reilly did much better here. Letterman's take seems to be something like that anyone whose son is lost in a war is immune from criticism. For once it appears to be O'Reilly trying to initiate a relatively intelligent debate whereas Letterman has an emotional reaction to a specific topic plus a generalized grievance - a well-placed one, granted - neither of which, admittedly, he can really argue for adeptly.
posted by abcde at 3:51 PM on January 4, 2006


O’REILLY: “Okay, so let's stop with the lying and the this and the that and the undermining and let's get him [Bush]."

This, from the guy who makes his living blaming "liberals" and "the left" for everything, is absolutely priceless because it illustrates what a truly contemptible pig and an imbecile O'Reilly really is.
posted by fandango_matt at 4:12 PM on January 4, 2006


O'Reilley called M.I.6. "M-one-six".
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 4:16 PM on January 4, 2006


Here, why don't a few of you "collateral damage" types actually look at some dead babies (and women, and non-combatant men) (large WMV, NSFW and NSF phony patriot bush-lickers, though they need to see it). Yeah, we killed 'em. Melted them in their beds in many cases with white phosphorous.

O'Reilly is a punk. Someday, someone will actually deck him on the air and he will cry on camera, and that will be the end.

Dick Cheney and his pals fully intended to kill civilians when they attacked Iraq. They knew it would happen on a large scale and be made worse by the manner in which they have conducted this war of choice. That's "intentional" in any common sense view of the word.

As for Cindy Sheehan, what Nola said:
her sacred ground comes from the bloody soil where her son lay taking in his final breath sir

How dare a scumsucker like O'Reilly even dare to speak her name?
posted by realcountrymusic at 4:21 PM on January 4, 2006


I didn't mention wahabbists. It was a general statement about strategy. But this doesn't have shit to do with religion, that - as usual - is the cover story. It’s got everything to do with power and oil.

I know, I mentioned Wahabbists because when someone talks of terrorism today, 99% of the time they're talking about Wahabbist terrorism. No one talks about FARC or ACC anymore, never mind something like the Tamil Tigers.

As for your second point, I disagree. Controlling oil isn't a Wahabbist goal, at least in the way I think you're talking about. I also don't think oil has much to do with our invasion of Iraq, and I think the 'blood for oil" meme does our (those left of center) cause damage politically. There are far cheaper ways to get oil than invading and occupying an oil rich nation, all of them more politically palatable. For example, Kazakhstan is not a member of OPEC and produces more oil than any other former Soviet state than Russia. It would be cheaper and more desirable to deal with Russia and China over Kazakhstan's oil than what we're doing in Iraq.

Yeah, I read Foreign Affairs too.

True, but I do software engineering in a military capacity (mostly war-gaming), but I've also participated in some anti-terrorism simulations and I've had the opportunity to be briefed by some really smart intelligence guys and war college professors about the "War on Terror".

I don't know if anyone’s goals are that simple, but I’m taking about the big picture here.
I want the U.S. in Iraq if I'm on the other side. By the same token if i'm in the U.S. I want to have a toehold in the region. Iraq is a good choice for both sides.


It sounds trite, but the Wahabbists have no "goal" beyond the destruction of Western influences. Maybe bin Laden has more Clauswitizian goals, but if he does, he hasn't made them public in any of his writings (that I know of). That isn't to say Wahabbists are not "rational actors" - they are. But can you tell me, beyond what's mentioned above, the goal of the Wahabbists?

I agree with your second point, that it is in the Wahabbist's interests to have the US in Iraq, but I don't think it's in the US's interests to be there. Oil, as I said above, is a shitty reason to go to war.

Religion and even U.S. hatred is just a force motivator though.

I would argue it's more collective paranoia and xenophobia inspired by Sept 11th and coddled by the media than it is a "Christian vs. Muslim" thing. In the Middle East, yes, it's a product of religious hatred and western imperialism, as personified by the United States. But let's not forget that it is all western culture, not just the US.

Looking at the full spectrum, the U.S. has lost a good deal of respect. Whether we win every battle or not, we’re losing that part of it. Once we occupy, it becomes a matter of incitement. Simple enough. Doing it under Saddam was less of an option. I’d rather see the U.S. take the hits and lose the money than nearly anyone else. Partly because the U.S. is Satan and tears shit up elsewhere, but also because they have the troops and the money to do it nearly indefinitely. Can’t keep jiggling the price if no one is there to reset the stability

That's just conspiracy theorisim, which has little to do with the reality of the situation. The reality behind the reasoning of the Iraq war is far simpler, and profoundly more hubristic. We invaded Iraq because a) we (or more accurately the neo-conservatives nurtured by PNAC, and currently in charge of our nation) wanted to, and had since 1992, b) had the opportunity after Sept 11th to go after the "Middle East", c) thought it would be easy and provide a foothold in the ME for generations to come. The oil was the frosting on the cake - a beneficial side effect of invasion. The real reason is for the invasion is military, not economic - the 14 permanent military bases we're building over there, for example.

I could go on and on and on about PNAC, the rise of the neo-con hawks and the invasion of Iraq, but it just doesn't seem to matter anymore - we're there and it's looking like we're screwed. It's time to start thinking about the future of Iraq, and the future of stateless terrorists with "unobtainable" goals.
posted by SweetJesus at 4:37 PM on January 4, 2006


realcountrymusic: Thanks for providing that uncomfortable video.

The day that somebody can explain to me why this war was the absolute best way to make americans safer (or hell, why it's even in the top ten), is the day I'll sign up to blindly follow the Republican party for life, no matter how insane they get.

As it stands, I look at the horrible carnage and I see their family and friends, many of whom will want revenge. I see a cycle that will only get worse, never better.

I look at the enormous tab, and think of the many things it could've done to prevent American deaths (or just to reduce American debt) and it's just a horrible crime.

I don't believe President Bush had bad intentions, I really do believe he thought it would be a cakewalk, and that it would do some good to the world. At this point, it's clear that President Bush needs to humbly and sincerely apologize for this debacle, and it's equally clear that a majority of the Republican party needs to eat a gigantic slice of humble pie.

This war was not a Conservative action. It was the work of radical extremists who took advantage of a trusting President. It flies in the face of true Republican values, and true American values. It's a stain on the party.
posted by I Love Tacos at 4:42 PM on January 4, 2006


"I have the FEELING"

Is there a better definiton of an East Coast Leftie?

A FEELING?

How about a rational thought, Dave?
posted by HTuttle at 5:09 PM on January 4, 2006


Wow. That was amazing. It was like watching Bertrand Russell and Oscar Wilde having a wrestling match.
posted by Blue Stone at 5:21 PM on January 4, 2006


I've defended dios before, several times, but you know, if I was American, and I actually gave a shit, and he made his 'opportunistic bitch' comment in my presence, I'd punch him right in the fucking mouth. [/internet tough guy]

I haven't read the whole thread yet, so if he apologized, well, then, that's nice. Nonetheless.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:23 PM on January 4, 2006


Has anyone ever called Iraqis "freedom fighters" on MetaFilter?
posted by mathowie at 8:54 AM PST on January 4 [!]


Just for the record, I believe that any indigeneous peoples that fight for controll of their own country from an occupying force are, in fact, freedom fighters. Even if their only wish is the freedom to install another regime.

See "Boston Tea Party".
posted by Balisong at 5:36 PM on January 4, 2006


(Even if that WAS set up to "blame" the indigeneous peoples, through the actions of extra-continental settlers..

Was George Washington, Ben Franklin, et.al. born in America?
posted by Balisong at 5:38 PM on January 4, 2006


Was George Washington, Ben Franklin, et.al. born in America?

Yes, in fact, they were born in America. George Washington was born in Virginia. Ben Franklin was born in Boston.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:40 PM on January 4, 2006


Yes -- Ben Franklin was born in Boston on January 17, 1706; George Washington was born in Northern Neck , Virginia on February 22, 1732.
posted by ericb at 5:43 PM on January 4, 2006


What JekPorkins said!
posted by ericb at 5:43 PM on January 4, 2006


Other American Freedom Fighters were born here in America -- Samuel Adams was born in Boston on Sept. 17th, 1722; Paul Revere was born on January 1, 1735 in Boston; John Hancock was born on January 12, 1737 in Boston.

The events of April 19, 1775 -- the Battle of Lexington and Concord -- saw these Freedom Fighters employ guerilla (aka terrorist) tactics to pick off much of the British "regulars" as they retreated from the battles on their way back to Boston.
posted by ericb at 5:48 PM on January 4, 2006


I was with Letterman on this. There's no real point to arguing with BOR -- best to just say he's full of shit and cut to a commercial.
posted by Astro Zombie at 5:49 PM on January 4, 2006


Ah, the American right wing.

Advocating for a war so many of them remain unwilling or intestinally incapable of fighting personally, namecalling from afar a woman who lost a son in that war "opportunistic bitch" (and worse) for simply daring to question the powers-that-be.

What manly behavior. Please, don't stop. Let all America see you for who you really are.

I'd ask how low these folks are willing to go, but part of their behavior stems from a dawning realization of how wrong they have been, and how much damage their lazy thinking and frank spinelessness has caused. Reality overtakes their self-lies, more and more. It's painful for them.

They are to be pitied more than anything.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 6:06 PM on January 4, 2006




Was George Washington, Ben Franklin, et.al. born in America?

Yes, in fact, they were born in America. George Washington was born in Virginia. Ben Franklin was born in Boston.
posted by JekPorkins at 5:40 PM PST on January 4 [!]


Yes -- Ben Franklin was born in Boston on January 17, 1706; George Washington was born in Northern Neck , Virginia on February 22, 1732.
posted by ericb at 5:43 PM PST on January 4 [!]


Well, there you go then.. Freedom fighters all around.
In 200 years will there not be stories told of Iraqis who fight and die today for the freedom (whatever it shall manifest of itself as) of Iraq?
posted by Balisong at 6:07 PM on January 4, 2006


In 200 years will there not be stories told of Iraqis who fight and die today for the freedom (whatever it shall manifest of itself as) of Iraq?

Yes, just as there will be stories of Osama Bin Laden, who fought for the freedom of Afghanistan. The question is not whether they will be famous, but whether they will be famous good guys or famous bad guys.
posted by JekPorkins at 6:10 PM on January 4, 2006


Allah forbid that there will be an Aribic version of "Friends" that people would rather watch than fight for their independence.
posted by Balisong at 6:11 PM on January 4, 2006


I predict that in 50 years Cindy Sheehan will be revered like Rosa Parks, in that praise will come from the mouths of politicians whose fathers and grandfathers excoriated her.

War then will be what racism is now: often inevitable, but always wrong.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 6:11 PM on January 4, 2006


Wow. That was amazing. It was like watching Bertrand Russell and Oscar Wilde having a wrestling match.

Hehe very funny!

I happen to agree with Letterman's take on politics here, but he was woefully unprepared. How could he go about criticizing O'Reilly without doing at least a little research? At least he was honest enough to admit it straight out; I do respect him for that. Letterman really wasn't ready and so he took the smirky way out, which is pretty lame if you're going to openly attack your guest. O'Reilly could teach him a lot about how to properly ambush a guest.
posted by Edgewise at 6:13 PM on January 4, 2006


Let's hope so. Only inevitable when it is outlawed, and then only by the reactionary peoples that think nothing should be outlawed.
posted by Balisong at 6:14 PM on January 4, 2006


"...but I've also participated in some anti-terrorism simulations" - SweetJesus

Rah. And I've participated in some actual CQBs. Used to train ravens. No wait, I worked for the C1A. No, no, I was in Delta force. No I was a Navy Seal* SweetJesus, this is exactly the kind of pissing contest I wasn't interested in getting into. I'm not interested in talking details. At least in this thread. And not so much today. Some other time, I'll be happy to hash some of this over.

"at least in the way I think you're talking about."
- SweetJesus

I've said twice now I think we're talking apples and oranges. Apparently you think I'm taking a position contrary to yours as opposed to making general observations
about how to scam money and make the enemy dance to your tune.

That said how do you reconcile:

but I don't think it's in the US's interests to be there.

with:

We invaded Iraq because a) we (or more accurately the neo-conservatives
nurtured by PNAC, and currently in charge of our nation) wanted to, and had since 1992, b) had the opportunity after Sept 11th to go after the "Middle East", c) thought it would be easy and provide a foothold in the ME for generations to come.


Clearly somebody thought it was in the US's interest. Or rather some interest of some kind.
And somebody is bombing the pipelines - again and again and again.
Hence my casino metaphor and my repeated statements that it's just speculation. Based loosely on what SOMO director general Dhiaa Al-Bakkaa is telling Reuters about investment and the Oil Ministry appointment which for some reason seems to be much more important than who is president to several competing factions and seems to be one of the major stumbling blocks in getting a government going. That and the seven sisters have reduced U.S. oil refining capacity to below the level of 1980. Futures derivatives on oil is running at something like 500 to 1 (1 being an actual barrel of oil) so the guys on the IPE (International Petroleum Exchange) are making silly amounts of money.

I dunno. Seems to me looking at hydrocarbons as the big magilla on the geo-strategic level, probably a good rule of thumb. Probably why we went after the Wahhabis as opposed to another group that doesn't own say al-taqwa bank and are as widespread as say the Muslim Brotherhood and had the juice to run the oil for food scam. We had the same problems from the MB with attempted subversion of the U.S. and British domination of the Saudi oil markets since the 50s. I could go on and on myself, but I don't feel like writing a book here.

But, Blah blah blah, details - I'm sure you're perfectly right.

I'm just saying on the whole that "War is fought for money" isn't a conspiracy theory and the whole wacky "Cui Bono" thing isn't so wacky.


*purposefully not in caps
posted by Smedleyman at 6:47 PM on January 4, 2006


Wow. Letterman was way out of his league. Tragic.
posted by notmydesk at 8:11 PM on January 4, 2006


Rah. And I've participated in some actual CQBs. Used to train ravens. No wait, I worked for the C1A. No, no, I was in Delta force. No I was a Navy Seal* SweetJesus, this is exactly the kind of pissing contest I wasn't interested in getting into. I'm not interested in talking details. At least in this thread. And not so much today. Some other time, I'll be happy to hash some of this over.

I'm not interested in getting in a pissing match, I'm attempting to explain to you where I'm coming from. No need to be an asshole about it.

Clearly somebody thought it was in the US's interest. Or rather some interest of some kind.
And somebody is bombing the pipelines - again and again and again.


So what you're telling me is that we need oil, and they don't want us to have oil... I'm with you.

Hence my casino metaphor and my repeated statements that it's just speculation

Of course it's speculation - it's all speculation. Neither of us knows for anything for certain, but does that make what you're any less conspiratorial? Why should it matter that it's speculation?

Based loosely on what SOMO director general Dhiaa Al-Bakkaa is telling Reuters about investment and the Oil Ministry appointment which for some reason seems to be much more important than who is president to several competing factions and seems to be one of the major stumbling blocks in getting a government going

Come right out and be clear, name your "somebodys"? Are you saying the US, in a profound moment of cognitive dissidence, decided to invade Iraq and turn it into a shit storm knowing foreign Wahabbists would come in and syphon off the oil supply so a handful of rich business men and other interests would get rich? That's what it seems like you're saying to me, but feel free to correct my interpretation. Otherwise, it certainly qualifies as a conspiracy.

That and the seven sisters have reduced U.S. oil refining capacity to below the level of 1980. Futures derivatives on oil is running at something like 500 to 1 (1 being an actual barrel of oil) so the guys on the IPE (International Petroleum Exchange) are making silly amounts of money.

That's because businessmen are scum, and will always profit off war. I think that's a much more likely reason than the government being complicit (at a high level, mind you) with purposely fucking-up Iraq to get rich.

I'm just saying on the whole that "War is fought for money" isn't a conspiracy theory and the whole wacky "Cui Bono" thing isn't so wacky.

War is fought for money, but not as directly are you're saying. Wars are an extension of nation's political will, not the whim of a handful of rich industrialists in a smokey room.
posted by SweetJesus at 8:12 PM on January 4, 2006


Some people are saying that Cindy Sheehan killed Sharon with the miners for political gain, and Delay and Ney coldn't stop her because of the conspiracy.
posted by 31d1 at 8:18 PM on January 4, 2006


Early on Aug. 3, 2005, we heard that 14 Marines had been killed in Haditha, Iraq. Our son, Lance Cpl. Edward "Augie" Schroeder II, was stationed there. At 10:45 a.m. two Marines showed up at our door. After collecting himself for what was clearly painful duty, the lieutenant colonel said, "Your son is a true American hero."

...At Augie's grave, the lieutenant colonel knelt in front of my wife and, with tears in his eyes, handed her the folded flag. He said the only thing he could say openly: "Your son was a true American hero." Perhaps. But I felt no glory, no honor. Doing your duty when you don't know whether you will see the end of the day is certainly heroic. But even more, being a hero comes from respecting your parents and all others, from helping your neighbors and strangers, from loving your spouse, your children, your neighbors and your enemies, from honesty and integrity, from knowing when to fight and when to walk away, and from understanding and respecting the differences among the people of the world.

Two painful questions remain for all of us. Are the lives of Americans being killed in Iraq wasted? Are they dying in vain? President Bush says those who criticize staying the course are not honoring the dead. That is twisted logic: honor the fallen by killing another 2,000 troops in a broken policy?

I choose to honor our fallen hero by remembering who he was in life, not how he died. A picture of a smiling Augie in Iraq, sunglasses turned upside down, shows his essence -- a joyous kid who could use any prop to make others feel the same way.

Though it hurts, I believe that his death -- and that of the other Americans who have died in Iraq -- was a waste. They were wasted in a belief that democracy would grow simply by removing a dictator -- a careless misunderstanding of what democracy requires. They were wasted by not sending enough troops to do the job needed in the resulting occupation -- a careless disregard for professional military counsel.

But their deaths will not be in vain if Americans stop hiding behind flag-draped hero masks and stop whispering their opposition to this war. Until then, the lives of other sons, daughters, husbands, wives, fathers and mothers may be wasted as well.

This is very painful to acknowledge, and I have to live with it. So does President Bush.

Paul E. Schroeder
A Life, Wasted
posted by y2karl at 8:22 PM on January 4, 2006


I do not believe the US military killed those women and children for the purpose of terrorizing the other side. They were collateral casualties, not targeted as were the civilians targeted by the insurgents.

What you BELIEVE does not equal the reality that individual soldiers HAVE targeted women/children. Sorry.

Given the past documented actions of soldiers under the flag of the United States, why is it gonna be different THIS TIME, other than 'your belief'?
(Hint: My Lai admissions)

This time around (St. Louis 'admissions'):
http://www.stlimc.org/newswire/display/698

Past actions of soldiers (UN rapes):
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article?ARTICLE_ID=42088
posted by rough ashlar at 8:50 PM on January 4, 2006


i think there may be merit to a notion that a pearl harbor-esque parallel took place...

i'm not saying it must be so, but i think the contention deserves investigation rather than scorn.


Sibel Edmonds would love to tell what she knows about this, but I think she's buried under piles and piles of gag orders...
posted by beth at 8:51 PM on January 4, 2006


Man. What a clusterfuck this thread is. OMG Cindy Sheehan's son DIED IN IRAQ therefore ANYTHING U SAY about her that is not GLORIOUS and WORSHIPFUL is UN-AMERICAN!!11!

I'm sorry for her loss, and sorry that this stupid invasion was imposed upon both the Iraqi people and the Americans, but come on. You can still engage in a rational, critical, thoughtful conversation with a person who is a victim. They're still human. She didn't ascend to the ranks of angels when she got the call.

I think Cindy Sheehan has a point, quite frankly, and as a the parent of a child who died for this initiative, as an American who opposes this invasion, I think she's right to stand up and ask as loudly as she can why her government chose to go there. But to suggest that she stands on sacred ground because her son died is pretty lame. That's the exact same reasoning that got the US in this pickle to begin with. A culture of victimhood, and making some sort of sacrament out of victimization, doesn't do anyone any good. It's not a good replacement for critical thinking.
posted by Hildegarde at 8:52 PM on January 4, 2006


can we just have a revolution already?
posted by exlotuseater at 9:01 PM on January 4, 2006


what the hell, I'll jump on the man pile:

Cindy Sheehan: Mother stricken by grief, enjoys spotlight while seeking to change things in the world. Every once in a while she says something innappropriate

Oreilly: Blowhard, not worth listening to. That guy at the bar who'll hit on your girlfriend right in front of you all night telling her how he's more of a man than you'll ever be. Eventually you try to move him away, he sucker punches you, you kick his ass and then he calls the cops on you.

Letterman: Funny, but agree the fire's no longer there

Dios: Gets off on being contrarian. don't encourage him

PP: Gets off on making threads useless. Don't engage him

MAN PILE
posted by slapshot57 at 9:16 PM on January 4, 2006


Anyone else's nipples hurt? Cause I woke up this morning, and, man, they just ached. I should probably see a doctor, no?
posted by hoborg at 9:56 PM on January 4, 2006


My nipples hurt when I was going through puberty. Does that count?
posted by brundlefly at 10:24 PM on January 4, 2006


I have a second set of nipples. My dad calls it the family curse.
posted by Balisong at 10:33 PM on January 4, 2006


I have bloody nipples every 30 days. It's the curse of my gender.
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:37 PM on January 4, 2006


Don't like to see your threads trolled on? Bored with ParisParamus and dios?

Here's a slapdash Greasemonkey script that filters out annoying people if you are on Firefox and have Greasemonkey installed.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 10:37 PM on January 4, 2006


Wars are an extension of nation's political will, not the whim of a handful of rich industrialists in a smokey room.
Wait, there's a difference?
posted by verb at 11:05 PM on January 4, 2006


Hildegarde: You can still engage in a rational, critical, thoughtful conversation with a person who is a victim. They're still human. She didn't ascend to the ranks of angels when she got the call.

That's precisely the point, man. Take a look at what some people (like Dios) have said about her ("opportunistic bitch") and tell me that it's rational, that it speaks to her arguments and her ideas. There has been plenty of excellent criticism of Sheehan here, most of us who support her arguments understand that she's not terribly bright or insightful. That she says stupid things on occasion. And plenty of people have criticized her arguments and her words. But a few have criticized her character which is just uncalled for and considering the media lens that we all know her through, totally assinine. Some people were a bit overzealous in calling out ad hominem attackers, but make no mistake, most people on this thread understand that the woman isn't untouchable or sacred, just that she (like everyone) deserves not to be judged by people who don't even know her and who can't formulate an argument against her ideas so they attack her character. Most of the people here were trying desperately to maintain the critical thinking you speak of in the face of meaningless name calling and woefully idiotic logic about neo-cons being some kind of self-defined rabinical order or some such (btw, thanks dios, I haven't had a laugh like that in too long). Sheehan may not be very smart, but people who claim that disparaging neo-cons makes you an anti-semite are really out of touch with reality...
posted by Farengast at 11:30 PM on January 4, 2006


I love America's public intellectuals
posted by pwedza at 12:30 AM on January 5, 2006


Yep, they ignored me.
posted by JHarris at 12:32 AM on January 5, 2006


"It was good television."
posted by TwelveTwo at 1:07 AM on January 5, 2006


Doubtful.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:17 AM on January 5, 2006


Unclear.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:36 AM on January 5, 2006


I'm assuming after all this that dios and PP have gone out and signed up for their lovely war? Right? Because otherwise your opinions are shit.
posted by tr33hggr at 6:56 AM on January 5, 2006


Paris:the unintentional deaths of kids /= the intentional deaths of them

Unless you are a dead kid. The use of the term intention is a bit difficult here. Our nation's actions were taken on the macro level with the foreknowledge that lots of kids would die. That we might prefer it if, by some wizard's spell, not single child were to die as a result of us blowing up and burning down places where they live does not absolve us morally.

We blow up babies because the loss is acceptable in the service of the greater good as we define it. The terrorists blow up babies because the loss is acceptable to the greater good as they define it. If the terrorists could get what they wanted without blowing up babies they wouldn't blow up babies. If the terrorists had the organization and resources that we have they would probably blow up babies more like we do. Would that make them right and us wrong?

Now my point is ultimately that the manner in which we blow up babies has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with our power. Any hope of taking the moral highroad on this one, and I believe we have it relative to the terrorists, is by having a superior definition of the greater good. However, that our morality is better than that of the terrorists is a small comfort, almost the smallest comfort I can imagine like siting in the Malebolge and priding myself on not being in Cocytus.

I think the US ought to have a higher threshold as far as what we're willing to kill babies for than we've displayed in this war. I would like our greater good to be better.
posted by I Foody at 10:04 AM PST on January 4 [!]


thirded.
posted by jb at 9:01 AM on January 5, 2006


“I'm attempting to explain to you where I'm coming from. No need to be an asshole about it.” - Sweetjesus
My apologies for coming off like an asshole. It gets frustrating when it feels like someone’s not reading what your typing. Could be my own poor communication though. I’m not in my head this week.


“ Are you saying the US, in a profound moment of cognitive dissidence, decided to invade Iraq and turn it into a shit storm knowing foreign Wahabbists would come in and syphon off the oil supply so a handful of rich business men and other interests would get rich? That's what it seems like you're saying to me, but feel free to correct my interpretation.” ” - sweetjesus

I will. I’m saying the US has an interest in maintaining a hold on OPEC et. al. That there are forces attempting now, and have been since the end of WWII, to break that link. That in it’s latest incarnation this force that has been attempting to break that link has attempted to control fluctuations in the oil prices rather than direct control to overthrow western dominance of those reasources.
In essence - they’ve been trying to beat it on paper rather than straight competition. That business has exacerbated the problem (since they have no national loyalties and just want the money). And that the exact details to this situation don’t matter because the names tend to change anyway, but those conflicting forces are the ones at work. There are myriad reasons beyond the symbolic to strike at the WTC, which is why it was attempted more than once. Iraq is a double edged sword. It fits both sides strategy.

“Wars are an extension of nation's political will, not the whim of a handful of rich industrialists in a smokey room.’ ” - Sweetjesus

What verb said.

“War is fought for money, but not as directly are you're saying.” ” - Sweetjesus

So I’m one bead off, who the fuck cares? The significance of me saying I’m speculating means exactly that. I’m just talkin’ in general. Want me to say you’re 10 times smarter than me? Have at it. You’ve got a better handle on it, you’re more informed. Whatever. I could be wrong about the whole thing, but my point is that it’s not as simple as bin Laden suddenly deciding to attack the WTCs, that there is a history here - an economic history that has episodes of bloodshed - that is being ignored rather neatly in this particular dialogue (BOR and Letterman) which mirrors the larger national simplistic diologue of “they hate our freedoms” and “we’ve done bad things too.”

I’m such an asshole that I’m doing you the courtesey of offering you a full response when I said I didn’t want to quibble about details and didn’t feel the need to fully explain what was a general concept in detail.

But feel free to continue to argue with me even though I ceded to your details and your general argument and wasn’t disagreeing with you in the first place.

Meh. It’s easy to do,I thought loquax was in earnest with the 1,000 push ups thing. But I’m not the smartest guy in the world.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:01 AM on January 5, 2006


Disingenuousness doesn’t translate well in this medium. I run about 40% to 50% tongue in cheek typically.
posted by Smedleyman at 10:08 AM on January 5, 2006


So, two people who make money off of other people watching their television program(s) engaged in a very rehearsed discourse. Got it.

Go LCD! Go, go, go!!!!!
posted by mrblondemang at 11:33 AM on January 5, 2006


So I’m one bead off, who the fuck cares? The significance of me saying I’m speculating means exactly that. I’m just talking’ in general. Want me to say you're 10 times smarter than me? Have at it. You’ve got a better handle on it, you're more informed. Whatever. I could be wrong about the whole thing, but my point is that it’s not as simple as bin Laden suddenly deciding to attack the WTCs, that there is a history here - an economic history that has episodes of bloodshed - that is being ignored rather neatly in this particular dialogue (BOR and Letterman) which mirrors the larger national simplistic dialogue of “they hate our freedoms” and “we've done bad things too.”

I'm not trying to be your teacher, neither am I trying to be a smart ass. I'm just trying to have a conversation about these complex issues in a way that does justice to their complexity. My klaxons always go off when anyone starts in with the "somebodys", because I think conspiracy theories are often too simplistic and rely on the most cynical of motives. I'm far more cynical than most people, I think, but I'm still not cynical enough to believe that Bush, et all were thinking five steps ahead regarding Iraq.

But feel free to continue to argue with me even though I ceded to your details and your general argument and wasn't disagreeing with you in the first place.

I don't disagree with you in total, I'm just disagreeing with some of your reasoning. It's not a personal attack on you.
posted by SweetJesus at 11:52 AM on January 5, 2006


“...I'm still not cynical enough to believe that Bush, et all were thinking five steps ahead regarding Iraq.”

I didn’t mention Bush. I said the U.S. - I probably should have said “the West” to make it more clear. The “somebody” thing was an attempt to reinforce the principles in opposition here, the groups and interests in the aggregate as opposed to the specific plans of any one operator. I apparently screwed the pooch on clarity there either way. Sorry.

“I'm just disagreeing with some of your reasoning.” - posted by SweetJesus

My point exactly. I’ve admited my reasoning is somewhat specious. Nothing there to really disagree with.
So we’re not talking apples/oranges. I’m talking pomaceous fruits in general and you’re talking about how golden delicious’ seeds were found in 1890 by A.H. Mullins, Clay County, West Virginia were introduced in 1914 and distributed by Stark Brothers.
And, for some reason attibuting arguments to my position, which I’ve said was pretty much decorative, just food for thought, in the first place.

“I'm just trying to have a conversation about these complex issues in a way that does justice to their complexity.” - posted by SweetJesus

And I’m not - therein lies the problem.

I tend to respond as a matter of courtesy. It’s a reflex. I prefer argument and resolution to silence.
But there’s no need for it here - I cede the subject in it’s entirety to your argument. I’m fully in earnest. Your concepts seem to be well grounded and I saw, and still see, no reason to take a contrary position. I recognize you meant no personal attack. I apologize if I gave the impression that I thought that or I’ve offended you in anyway.
posted by Smedleyman at 12:50 PM on January 5, 2006


All right, I think I see where you're coming from. No offense taken, and the argument has run it's course. These things tend to happen in clusterfuck threads where there are a dozen different tangents being run through at once - and I didn't have the time or the will to read this whole thing, so I'm sure I missed out on some of what you were trying to convey, and seized on the tail end of your argument...
posted by SweetJesus at 1:07 PM on January 5, 2006


Letterman's a sorry-assed EastCoast Liberal whiner

Hmm, that's one opinion. Let's hear another one, shall we?
The late-night program hosted by David Letterman is the toughest interview show on television.

That's because Mr. Letterman is a smart guy who can spot a phony with telescopic accuracy and expects his guests to bring something to the table. If a guest begins to sink on this show, the bottom is a long way down.
--Bill O'Reilly, Feb. 17, 2001. [via]
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:18 PM on January 5, 2006


Transcript for anyone on dial-up, or who simply prefers to read instead of watch.
posted by pmurray63 at 1:39 PM on January 5, 2006


Devils, that is HILARIOUS. I know O'Reilly is a gold mine for eating his words, but this one is probably the best I've seen. Thanks for the comment.
posted by Farengast at 3:56 PM on January 5, 2006


From BOR's website:

Top Story
Interpreting the Letterman interview
Guests: Fox News analyst Juan Williams & entertainment reporter Jeanne Wolf

For more on the O'Reilly-Letterman dustup, The Factor was joined by Fox News analyst Juan Williams and entertainment reporter Jeanne Wolf. Williams was astonished by Letterman's hostility. "I was surprised, given his antagonism toward you, that he had you on his show. This was a knife fight, and I do believe it was about the culture. He said some horrible things to you." Wolf agreed that Letterman was hostile, but denied that it had anything to do with a culture war. "I do not think this is the significant moment in television you think it is, because I don't think there is a culture war." The Factor worried that many young Americans get their news from entertainers like Letterman. "David deals in humor, I deal in facts. Letterman sincerely did not believe what I was telling him about Christmas. He doesn't know what we do here, and he admitted that. He's forming his opinions on what his crew tells him."

Later in The Factor, former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich also commented on David Letterman. "I thought he was astonishingly lacking in information of any kind. This was like getting in a fight with a guy who has no idea what ring he is in."


I think BOR should advertise washing machines.
posted by stinkycheese at 9:17 AM on January 6, 2006


Dear America,
stop arguing about stupid shit. Start a fucking dialogue, find some common ground and please stop fighting about who said what. We're all really scared out here. Seriously. Cut it out.
love,
The Rest Of The World
posted by longbaugh at 12:39 PM on January 6, 2006


Dear Rest Of The World,
The day we find some common ground is the day you really need to be scared.
Love,
America
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 12:47 PM on January 6, 2006


Dear America.
Good point. Might I hint at the common ground being "love thy fellow man" or something of that nature?
many thanks,
The Rest Of The World
(with the exception of France which has, rather typically, decided to strike out on it's own).
posted by longbaugh at 1:30 PM on January 6, 2006


Dear America, Dear Rest of The World,
we're going to cut off all your gas and oil unless you pay us ten times the current price. See how quickly you suckers find common ground after that.
Nighty night,
Russia & the Arabian peninsula
posted by funambulist at 5:04 PM on January 6, 2006


« Older New Musical Experiences   |   Lipstadt: Let Irving Go. Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments