Bill Oreilly on The Huffington Post

Phil Bronstein: Nudity and cross-dressing? Bill O'Reilly missed the real Wild West

2008-11-21T16:22:51Z

The always entertaining Bill O'Reilly has once again reached into his reliable ammo bag of O'Reilly Factor slugs, peppering San Francisco with the usual stew of foul condiments: we're dark, radical, seedy and dangerous. Come on, Bill, just surrender to your inner rebel and do a sister city deal between your show and SF. If we didn't exist, you'd have to invent us.

This time Bill sent a young, wide-eyed documentarian, Jesse Watters, to video the degradation of our streets. It's all shots of homeless street schizophrenics and transgender hookers and tsk-tsking expressions of fear by some residents. It looked like an HBO series.

"Every single neighborhood has a dark underbelly that seeps in...", Mr. Watters tells Bill, who himself said he "wouldn't go into the Presidio at night." Unless of course he lived in one of those great houses or worked for George Lucas.

While Bill is stuck on SF as the paragon of "radical Left government" and "secular liberal culture" like a girl with a crush on the bad boy, he actually missed the best recent radical scandal by about 800 miles.

The Seattle Parks and Recreation board just voted to let people go naked in public parks, something even Bill O'Reilly's camera didn't capture here. Actually they decided not to charge nude people in city parks with criminal trespass. Seattle has no laws governing public nudity (attention Bill!). To add further flame to an O'Reilly-style fire, the issue came to the city's notice after a World Naked Bike Ride happened a few months ago.

A little south on the Left Coast, more social and cultural naughtiness. The mayor-elect of Silverton, Oregon used to be called Stu Rasmussen when he had the job 20 years ago. But now he's been restored to the city's top job by the voters as Carla Fong. Despite the tight skirt, lipstick, major breast implants, high heels and a Duane "Dog" Chapman hairdo, the locals still call Carla, Stu. Some old habits die hard, and he was Stu for so long.

He'd change his face, too, if he could, the mayor-to-be says. "A face like this only a mother could love." But apparently there's plenty of love for him in Silverton.

Carla/Stu is the country's first openly transgender Mayor, according to an LA Times story. And he beat the incumbent mayor 52 percent to 39 percent. His opponent accused him of "dressing like a $3 hooker." Where are the cameras to document this, Bill?

And while we're on hookers and mayors, Mr. O'Reilly's documentary also failed to zero in on same sex marriage champion Gavin Newsom. Maybe that's because Mr. Newsom was busy prepping for an appearance on the "Dr. Phil" show for broadcast today. The mayor is not getting therapy for a change but he is talking about Prop 8.

I'm sure it's entirely coincidental that, also today on network TV, Ashley Dupre, the relatively high-end courtesan ($1,000 an hour, according to court records) who brought down New York Governor Elliot Spitzer spills herself out for ABC's Diane Sawyer. Ms. Dupre was - wait for this - "shocked" to discover she was servicing the highest official in the State at a DC hotel. It was "just the TV and I" when she found out, she says. The "Girls Gone Wild" alum seems genuinely upset in her Monica Lewinsky moment in front of the cameras and expresses remorse about the difficulty she caused. She also insists she's an "escort", not a prostitute. Watch the show to learn the difference.

So, a busy time for Sodom and Gomorrah all around.

Back in SF, a visiting business student from a less sinful place, here to go to the Stanford-USC football, was stabbed in the Marina's Bermuda Triangle outside Mayor Newsom's PlumpJack restaurant and the Balboa cafe. (He'll be OK, according to the police.)

Since the Dr. Phil show was taped earlier in the week, Gavin could not share with the host how he feels about that - but I bet Bill O'Reilly would.

For more, see Bronstein at Large.

Mitchell Bard: It's Time for a War on War on the "War on Christmas"

2008-11-21T16:05:27Z

After enduring eight years of a president who was determined to impose his religious beliefs on the country, I've just about had it with people trying to shove religion down my throat. Maybe that is why I have no patience for the (completely ludicrous) claim that there is a "War on Christmas," made by right-wingers like Bill O'Reilly. But what put me over the top is that now a deputy editor of the once reputable Wall Street Journal has weighed in on the issue, actually equating the current economic crisis with the fact that people say "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas."

Daniel Henninger wrote in the WSJ yesterday:

"This year we celebrate the desacralized 'holidays' amid what is for many unprecedented economic ruin -- fortunes halved, jobs lost, homes foreclosed. People wonder, What happened? One man's theory: A nation whose people can't say 'Merry Christmas' is a nation capable of ruining its own economy."

Henninger's point is that the economic downturn was caused by "borrowers, lenders and securitizer shamans" who were "operating in a zero-gravity environment, aloft on moral hazard," which was due to a loss of "responsibility, restraint and remorse." He goes on to say that "responsibility and restraint are moral sentiments," and that "the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous." He claims that the "disappearance of 'Merry Christmas'" is indicative of this "dereligioning." Thus, the link between not saying "Merry Christmas" and the failing economy.

Convinced? Me neither.

Somehow, people like Henninger and O'Reilly think it's important that people say "Merry Christmas" rather than "Happy Holidays." But what Henninger and O'Reilly don't seem to want to understand is that the United States of America, as much as they would like it to be otherwise, is not a Christian nation. The majority of its citizens may currently be Christian, but, again, that does not make the country, as an institution, Christian.

(Full disclosure: I am a nonreligious Jew, so the "War on Christmas" crowd will, no doubt, dismiss all of my opinions.)

The last time I checked, the First Amendment was still in full force and effect. As a reminder, it says:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You will notice in the very first words of the Bill of Rights that the founders made it clear, in no uncertain terms, that there was to be no one religion "established" for the country. The First Amendment makes clear that everyone should be allowed to practice his/her religious faiths ("or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), but that no one faith was to be elevated above the others by the government. Being Christian does not make one more American.

And yet that is exactly what the O'Reillys and Hennigers of the world seem to want. I'm sorry to report this fact to them, but not everyone in this country celebrates Christmas. According to a Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life study from earlier this year, 1.7 percent of the population identified themselves as Jewish, 0.6 percent as Muslim, 0.7 percent as Buddhist, 0.4 percent as Hindu, 0.7 percent as Jehovah's Witness, and more than 0.2 percent as from "other world religions." On top of that, according to the Pew study, more than 16 percent of Americans do not consider themselves any religion.

All of that translates into millions of people who do not celebrate Christmas. Do O'Reilly and Henninger think that these people should be made to feel "other," outsiders in the American experience? I hope not. That is not what America is about. Many of the founders of the country moved here to flee religious persecution. They just wanted to be free to practice their own religion here. And that doesn't mean that only they get to do so.

This country has some tragic history when it comes to its treatment of minorities. We enslaved African Americans as recently as 145 years ago, and we had laws on the books repressing them until quite recently. It was only 65 years ago that we rounded up American citizens who just happened to be of Japanese descent and placed them into internment camps solely because of their country of origin. And it was only two weeks ago that three states voted to amend their constitutions to ensure that homosexuals cannot enjoy the same marriage rights as heterosexuals.

In light of that history, it seems to me that we, as a nation, should be looking at more ways to come together and make everyone feel a part of the American family, not stressing our differences and making those in the minority feel as though they are not true Americans. And through the simple act of saying "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas," we, as a country, can show our tolerance for other faiths and make everyone feel a part of the holiday season.

If nothing else, doesn't it come down to simple manners? Why would you want to say "Merry Christmas" to someone that doesn't celebrate the holiday? Clearly, such a greeting is only going to make the recipient uncomfortable, pointing out that he/she does not practice the same religion that the majority of the country does. Meanwhile, the dreaded "Happy Holidays" invocation is actually inclusive and polite, saying, in effect, "There are a lot of holidays this time of year, so if any of them apply to you, we hope it's a nice time for you." Isn't such a tolerant attitude more in keeping with what the United States is supposed to represent?

Of course, nothing I've said would stop those who observe Christmas from going to church, decorating their houses (inside and out) and celebrating with their families and friends. And certainly, saying "Happy Holidays" in public venues doesn't stop two people from greeting each other with "Merry Christmas" when they both observe the holiday. My only point is that in public displays, when not all of the recipients will be Christian, there is nothing wrong with using the more inclusive "Happy Holidays." That idea hardly constitutes a "War on Christmas."

There is also a dangerous, insidious strain to the movement complaining of a "War on Christmas." Go back to Henninger's words in the WSJ. He says that "the steady secularizing and insistent effort at dereligioning America has been dangerous." I refuse to accept that the immorality of finance professionals is due to a lack of religious piety. The implication is that without religion, there can be no morals or ethics. I, and I'm sure many others out there, absolutely reject such an assumption. Moral behavior does not have to come from the teachings of a religion. An atheist is every bit as capable of drawing on his/her beliefs to lead an ethical life as a religious person.

And by turning to an argument about Christmas, Henninger is also implying that it's not enough to be religious, you have to be an adherent of his religion. That is certainly a dangerous idea, and it is also completely sanctimonious, given the myriad scandals that have enveloped U.S. churches in recent years. Being religious didn't stop, for example, priests from molesting boys (and the church covering it up), nor did it prevent Rev. Ted Haggard, the founder of the New Life Church, from getting caught buying crystal meth and patronizing a male prostitute (after crusading against homosexuals).

I would further argue that the injection of religion into politics has not produced the kind of moral and ethical behavior Henninger longs for. It seems to me that the emergence of an argument that if you oppose the Republican party and support the Democrats, you are somehow not righteous in the eyes of the church, is a pretty dangerous way of thinking. I don't think it's helpful that a South Carolina priest would tell his parishioners that they should not accept Holy Communion if they voted for Barack Obama. And I don't think the national interest is served by actions like the recently deposed Republican North Carolina U.S. House of Representatives member Robin Hayes saying during the campaign that "liberals hate real Americans that work and achieve and believe in God."

Clearly, I'm not making the argument that all religious people are bad. (Sorry, but I can't help but anticipate the potential "he is criticizing religion!" charge of those who believe there is a "War on Christmas.") What I am saying is that there is nothing in being religious that makes someone inherently more moral and ethical than someone who is not religious.

So you'll forgive me if I don't buy into the Henniger/O'Reilly view of America. I see this country as a place in which we respect the religious beliefs of all of our citizens, and, more importantly, we would not seek to impose our faiths on our neighbors. And yes, I would like to see a country where we don't seek to make non-Christian citizens feel like they are not part of the national fabric by pointing out to them, again and again, that they are different than a majority.

Or, put another way, I want to live in a tolerant, respectful country that says "Happy Holidays," rather than a divisive nation that seeks to make people uncomfortable by saying "Merry Christmas." Isn't that what "peace on earth, good will toward man" entails? There is no war on Christmas. We only ask that those who celebrate the holiday not insist that those who don't celebrate with them. Actually, that statement of my belief is my declaration of war on the war on the "War on Christmas."

Happy holidays everyone.

Steve Young: Right Tries To Redefine Free Speech...Again

2008-11-21T07:20:00Z

The Right is back to their old tricks, as if they ever left them.

Now it's not the Fairness Doctrine. It's the Censorship Doctrine. Instead of giving both sides fair access to the airwaves, it's taking it away from the Right.

No one need to look further than my debate with Sean Hannity and Brent Bozell of the Media Research Centers on Hannity's syndicated radio show last Tuesday where both Hannity and Bozell quickly re-labeled the Fairness Doctrine as the Censorship Doctrine, which in all honesty was Sean's invention which Bozell happily hopped on.

For the record, the Fairness Doctrine READ THE REST OF THE UNFAIRNESS HERE.

Award-winning TV writer, Steve Young, is author of "Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" (www.greatfailure.com) and blogs at the appropriately named steveyoungonpolitics.com

O'Reilly, Ingraham Stoke Fairness Doctrine Paranoia

2008-11-21T02:05:45Z

Yesterday, we talked about how conservatives were all a-leap with terror over the wholly hallucinatory notion that President-elect Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress were going to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine. The facts are these: Obama's against its reimplementation, Democratic lawmakers are mystified over the concern, and given the chance as recently as last year to put the Doctrine back in place, the Democratic-controlled House of Representatives shot the idea down, with Democratic members voting against it in large numbers.

And yet, last night -- right on cue -- two of Fox News' media celebrities continued to waste their own airwaves talking about this entirely spectral inanity. Here's Laura Ingraham and Bill O'Reilly discussing it. O'Reilly doesn't understand that cable news shows aren't part of the Fairness Doctrine. Laura Ingraham believes that a quip Chuck Schumer made on Fox News (see second paragraph) to mess with their heads constitutes a policy position. O'Reilly doesn't believe the Doctrine will be reinstated (which is correct) because it would be Obama's "don't ask, don't tell" (which is straight up daffydoodles).

Matt Yglesias, using his excellent summative wit, says "It's very strange. Political movements mischaracterize the other side's general goals all the time. But I've never heard of anything like the current conservative mania for blocking a particular legislative provision that nobody is trying to enact." Too right! I'd say that when it comes to phantom menaces, it's far more likely that we need to worry about that crazy Year 2012 Mayan Calendar Apocalypse thingy than we do about the Fairness Doctrine:

I mean, that's just bananas! And the only thing in place to prevent that is a damned Buddhist monk with a bell? That's crazy.

Anyway, here's a video of doctors removing a "brain worm" from some woman's head. I know! WE HAVE GOT BRAIN WORMS NOW, APPARENTLY. Anyway, maybe these brain worms are what's causing so many conservatives to freak out about the Fairness Doctrine, and also defend Sarah Palin.

Fox's O'Reilly Labels DeGeneres 'PInhead' For Miley Cyrus Interview

2008-11-20T09:30:05Z

It feels weak to keep repeating the joke that an anagram for the title of Bill O'Reilly's new book (A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity) is "a shameful, bona fide hypocrite" -- but gosh darn it! Things just keep on reminding me of the irony! Take last night's "Pinheads or Patriots" section of his eponymous newscast, where O'Reilly leveled the "pinhead" criticism at TV show host Ellen DeGeneres for attempting to draw out pop music star Miley Cyrus on her boyfriend. Provided you aren't deathly allergic to the sound of teenage giggling, no one was harmed during the interview, but O'Reilly still finds fault, saying at the end, "Hey, Ellen, the girl is fifteen, we don't need to know about her private life, don't be a pinhead."

And hey! Maybe we don't need to know about Miley Cyrus' private life! But that doesn't stop O'Reilly from running lengthy clips of the same interview, thus satisfying the curiosity of anyone with a prurient interest in Cyrus' private life! Way to have your cake and eat it too!

Really, the whole matter is best augmented by going to watch this video on Fox's site, where the video comes with the caption: "Miley Cyrus: Pinhead or Patriot?" Looks like somebody wanted the viewer to pre-suppose it would be her behavior subject to judgment.

Stephanie Miller: Right Wing World from The Stephanie Miller Show

2008-11-19T13:41:21Z

Today's "Right Wing World" from The Stephanie Miller Show. This clip features Kevin Madden on CNN, Bill O'Reilly's head almost explodes at the thought of Sen. Franken, former child star now right-wing preacher Kirk Cameron on "the gay rights" and live caller Ethan.

Listen Live at http://www.stephaniemiller.com

Christmas Warrior O'Reilly Doesn't Practice What He Preaches

2008-11-19T10:13:11Z

Last week, I noted how Fox's Bill O'Reilly, as per usual, was kicking his annual "War On Christmas" into high gear. Each year, O'Reilly inveighs against people, especially retailers, who refuse to offer him the proper "Merry Christmas" greeting -- opting instead for the ecumenical "Happy Holidays." This is clearly threatening the fabric of our great republic! But, if you remember, we warned that parent company News Corp. was a frequent antagonist in O'Reilly's personal yuletide psychodrama, consistently using the "Happy Holidays" solicitation.

Well, O'Reilly's "War On Christmas" aggression is about to be turned inward, as soon as he discovers that he avoids using "Merry Christmas" himself! The folks over at NewsHounds capture this image from O'Reilly's own site:

OH NOES! A "Holiday Reading List?" What's with all the secular humanisting? And really, what on earth is this mention of "the winter season?" Could it be that O'Reilly is secretly worshiping Wiccan moon gods at Solstice time?

Bill O'Reilly Smears San Francisco With Surreal Pseudo-Documentary (VIDEO)

2008-11-18T16:03:44Z

Bill O'Reilly is scared. As a daring crusader on the side of "traditional America" in the war against "secular progressives," O'Reilly fears that the "far left" will push President-elect Obama to embrace their values. As an example of the horrors that would befall us if this were to happen, O'Reilly offers up a surreal pseudo-documentary of San Francisco. O'Reilly sends producer Jesse Waters, whose sole journalistic value seems to be his utter lack of shame at chasing after and ambushing anyone O'Reilly points his finger at, to San Francisco because it represents 'far left government' at work.

Watching this video, one would think that ninety percent of San Francisco's population are either homeless, addicted to drugs, prostitutes, crazy, or some mix of all these. The video is an unbelievable smear on a great American city. The only thing worse than the video's message is the production value. After showing the video, O'Reilly interviews Waters for insight into how San Franciscans can live in such moral and physical squalor. Waters basically says the citizens of Frisco have accepted, and adjusted to, the fact their city is a hell hole. Actually, the city is so beyond the pale that O'Reilly once said he wouldn't mind if Al Qaida attacked the city. Watch and judge for yourself.

Gingrich On Prop 8 Protests: "Gay And Secular Fascism ... Prepared To Use Violence"

2008-11-17T17:38:09Z

Media Matters reports on a Fox News discussion between Bil O'Reilly and Newt Gingrich on protests against the California gay marriage ban:

O'REILLY: OK, now, the culture war. I know you've been flying around the country, and you're doing stuff. In the last three or four days, this is really nasty stuff. I mean, you know, hyper -- we're gonna show you some of the video. A woman getting a cross smashed out of her hand. We had a church in Michigan invaded by gay activists. We're gonna show you the video on Monday of that -- we have exclusively. We had a guy in Sacramento fired from his job. We had boycotts called on restaurants.

I mean, it is getting out of control, very few days after the election. How do you assess that?

GINGRICH: Look, I think there is a gay and secular fascism in this country that wants to impose its will on the rest of us, is prepared to use violence, to use harassment. I think it is prepared to use the government if it can get control of it. I think that it is a very dangerous threat to anybody who believes in traditional religion. And I think if you believe in historic Christianity, you have to confront the fact. And, frank -- for that matter, if you believe in the historic version of Islam or the historic version of Judaism, you have to confront the reality that these secular extremists are determined to impose on you acceptance of a series of values that are antithetical, they're the opposite, of what you're taught in Sunday school.

For a dose of reality, here is video of some of the protests:

Allison Kilkenny: Progressives Won and That's Not a Panda Bear

2008-11-17T15:31:06Z

I want to publicly thank Bill O'Reilly. Up until his recent appearance on the Daily Show, I had foolishly started to believe that the right-wing cluster of our "Happy Family" political spectrum still had rational members, and by extension, rational ideas.

So I started to nod whenever I heard right-wing pundits and politicians say America is a center-right country. Therefore, Barack Obama has to be bipartisan in his cabinet selection. Otherwise, they say, the country will explode into civil war and Congress will grind to a stand still, which is weird because I thought Obama secured 52.7% of the popular vote, which is more than any Democrat has won since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. That sounds like a mandate.

Furthermore, Congress securing 57 seats sounds like a mandate. And 3 seats are still up in the air, though the race in Alaska now seems to favor Democrat Mark Begich by 1,022 votes, which again proves that Alaskans will only tolerate the "Maverick" thing until you're convicted on seven felony counts. Sorry, Uncle Ted. Minnesota's Norm Coleman barely leads Democratic contender, Al Fraken, by 206 votes. Meanwhile, Georgians are having a mandatory run-off election.

The point is things look great for Democrats. So why are their spines turning to jello already? Conservatives are muttering that 52.7% of the popular vote and 57 congressional seats are hardly a mandate, but George W. Bush swaggered into his second term with around 50% of the public behind him, and called it a mandate, so why can't the same standards be applied to this election?

But putting aside the popular vote, some recent polling about issues most important to Americans is very telling. In a New York Times/CBS poll, voters overwhelming declared the issues most important to them are the Iraq war and healthcare. At the time, only 27% approved of president Bush's handling of healthcare. More importantly, the poll also showed that Americans are willing to make significant trade-offs for a better healthcare plan, including paying $500 more annually and foregoing future tax cuts. This puts a dent in the Republican theory that Americans universally reject raising taxes. On Americans' part, that kind of thinking sounds pretty progressive. Oh, it also sounds like a mandate.

One might even say Barack Obama has a Progressive mandate from the American people.

In order to thwart this stubborn fact of reality, the right-wingers defer to their second favorite Republican of all, all time, Abraham Lincoln. Lincoln, they smugly remind those of us who cling to our fact sheets, had a bipartisan cabinet.

Well, yeah, but he has also just led the country through a Civil War, and he had a tenuous grip on the country. If he hadn't invited his enemies into his cabinet, everything would have fallen apart. Now, the Republicans will surely whine and bitch for the next four-to-eight years, but I doubt they'll take up arms and storm the Capitol.

This sudden embracing of all things bipartisan is curious, especially from a party that has been so consistently partisan for the past decade. Where were the cries for inclusion during the Bush reign? It's as though the Republicans and the right-wing media are in utter denial about their presidential loss, Congressional loss, and also the future of their political party.

Which explains why they're desperately trying to finagle their way into the Oval Office. They've already made great strides in hammering the "Continuity" drum. Certain members of the intelligence community must remain in place, they say, or Al-Qaeda will catch whiff of the exact moment of transformation and attack. This is speculative reasoning, at best, and there is no evidence that the United States would be made considerably more vulnerable by officially firing the old guard Bushies.

Now is the time for President-elect Obama to act like a stern father, tell the Republicans to be quiet for a while, and start undoing the damage done by the Bush administration. It's also the time to consider reality and start objectively weeding through corrupt ideologies. Being inclusive will only get you so far before it gets you under the track of the Republican tank.

Obama can't tolerate the Neo-Conservative policies of torture, preemptive, endless war, and domestic spying. He must unequivocally denounce these policies, and distance himself from the perpetrators of these crimes. That includes people like Jamie Miscik, who is helping to lead the review of intelligence agencies and is making recommendations to the new administration. Obama, no doubt, made this decision in the spirit of bipartisanship. It certainly can't be because of Miscik's resume, which reads like a disaster list of failed life decisions.

Miscik, who was fired by Porter Goss, is the former Deputy Director for Intelligence. She is guilty of passing along the October 2002 estimate, complete with the 28 lies Colin Powell eventually delivered to the UN, which is now considered an international embarrassment. Basically, this is the lady who supplied the lies that led us to war. Some countries consider that a war crime.

But that requires a rational examination of history. It's 2008. We don't consider history anymore. Polling tells us Americans are ready for Progressive policies, the Bush doctrine has failed, but we're not concerned with this reality. It took Bill O'Reilly to make me realize that.

Up is down. Black is White. Brown bears are Pandas, and America is not a Progressive country. That's what the Republicans would have us all believe. Except, it's not true.

That's when Bill O'Reilly reminded me the truth doesn't matter. Not as long as you're a pig-headed bully with a fat paycheck and control over corporate airwaves. The truth doesn't matter if you can out-muscle and out-shout your opponent.

John Stewart foolishly tried to reason with O'Reilly and point out the obvious: a majority of America voted for Barack Obama, who based his campaign on Progressive ideals: ending the wars, providing health care for citizens, creating green jobs, establishing a living wage, and restoring America's standing in the world. John argues, therefore, that the country is Progressive.

Watch O'Reilly's head nearly explode:

This isn't a matter of vengeance. The American people will never "get square" with the Republicans. Their Constitution is in shambles. Their rights have been violated. Their safety is in grave jeopardy because of the imperial desires of a handful of needle-dick Neo-Cons.

This is a matter of being sane and remembering the last eight years. It's time to stop letting people who have no grip on reality dictate the future of America. The country isn't center-right, you're not a bold, fresh piece of humanity, and that is not a fucking panda bear.

Harry Shearer: The Difference Between Show Business and Business

2008-11-17T02:30:18Z

In show business (masquerading as "television journalism"), Bill O'Reilly on Fox News Channel excoriates not only his time-slot rival Keith Olbermann for left-leaning views, but includes in his rants, for good measure, the execs of NBC News, NBC, and GE. He goes so far as to accuse those executives of complicity or responsibility for the deaths of American soldiers. Tough stuff. And Olbermann is equally bombastic, attacking O'Reilly and FNC nightly on Countdown.

In real business, Rupert Murdoch's Fox is climbing into bed with NBC. In truth, the two networks have been virtual lovers for more than a year, locked in the embrace of a larcenous website called Hulu, where they give new episodes of their shows away, sell advertising (presumably not for play money), then tell the actors, writers and directors of those shows that there's no revenue stream there. The new alliance involves the very news divisions whose commentators are putting on the ferocious show of mutual hatred. NBC and Fox are pooling their local-news resources in Philadelphia, so that, rather than each station sending out a reporter, a crew, maybe even a helicopter to cover a news event, the combined operation sends out just one of each. Saving: a reporter, a crew, a chopper for each story. The journalistic lovebirds say this is a pilot project, hoping to roll it out nationwide.

James Carville on CNN Sunday was one of a number of political talking heads now reminding us that, in terms of what's said publicly, "you have to discount the campaign by 80 percent. That happens in politics." Of course he's guessing low, no need to totally ream his old business. The apparently two-fisted media feuds that are so good for ratings are equally diaphanous when there's money to be made, or at least saved.

Steve Young: Ali Would Be Proud: Stewart Rope-A-Dopes O'Reilly

2008-11-15T10:58:15Z

Let's get ready to rum-ble!

In the red trunks, fighting out of Fox News, 6'4" Heavyweight Champion of Spin, Bill O'Reilly! In the blue trunks, fighting out of Comedy Central, 5'7" soaking wet, Heavyweight Champion of Grin, Jon Stewart.

You can bet your Factor Gear that Bill O'Reilly will be showing clips of his appearance on The Daily Show on his The O'Reilly Factor Monday night, but he won't be admitting that he had been exposed as a shallow, labels-are-more-important-than-content, notso bold fresh piece of humanity.

Big Bill got whipped and never saw the punch that got him.

To the Factor Folks™, I'm sure Bill's venture into enemy territory was another example of just how their Looking Out For You No Spinster scored another knockdown.

Probably because they never understood the punch that got him.

Stewart was gracious as he always seems to be with those of dissimilar belief - except perhaps for his pummeling of Bill Kristol and that one time with John McCain. At least up to the first bell.

Certainly more amicable than he is on his own show when in disagreement with a guest, O'Reilly came on to promote his homage to himself tome, "A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity." But you have to throw in the fact that The Factor is no The Daily Show.

First of all, The Factor doesn't have as much integrity as The Daily Show. When Stewart is making it up, Stewart admits it ("I'm not a news organization"). When O'Reilly makes it up, that IS The Factor.

When Stewart's crew takes an actual story and edits it to transform it into a joke READ THE REST OF THE BLOW BY BLOW RINGSIDE REPORT HERE

Award-winning TV writer, Steve Young, is author of "Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" (www.greatfailure.com) and blogs at the appropriately named steveyoungonpolitics.com

Bill O'Reilly On "Daily Show": Obama Fears, The Secular Revolution And A Teddy Bear (VIDEO)

2008-11-14T07:36:55Z

Fox news blowhard Bill O'Reilly stopped by "The Daily Show" Thursday for the first time since the election and stayed two segments. In the first Jon Stewart comforted him about his pre-election fears over Barack Obama, even giving him a stuffed animal to snuggle.

Later, talking about the secular revolution in America, O'Reilly told Stewart, "If you go to Alabama, you're going to be killed... they'll stone you to death." The argument turned to the traditions of America, with Stewart arguing the next step is gay marriage, which O'Reilly called, "your Greenwich Village opinion." O'Reilly then denied there was diversity in the Village to a jaw-dropped Stewart and insisted America is a center-right country.

WATCH PART 1:

WATCH PART 2:

Stephanie Miller: Right Wing World from The Stephanie Miller Show

2008-11-13T16:50:18Z

Today's "Right Wing World" from The Stephanie Miller Show. This clip features Bay Buchanan, Fred Barnes raises the specter of Acorn, Bill O'Reilly on the "Liberal Press", and famed toe-sucker Dick Morris.

O'Reilly Factor: Dennis Miller's Homophobic Joke About Barney Frank

2008-11-12T20:54:57Z

Dennis Miller appeared on The O'Reilly Factor tonight (Miller is a frequent guest on Bill O'Reilly's show) and went on a rant regarding what Barack Obama should do to the executives of AIG when he takes office, namely, that Obama "should flatten these punks" and "come down hard on them." After Miller finished his rant, O'Reilly chimed in that Obama's next move should be "to arrest Barney Frank, correct?" Miller replies, "Eh, Barney might want to be arrested."

It seems that Frank, the most prominent openly-gay member of the House of Representatives, is being slurred by Miller for his homosexuality. The reactions of O'Reilly and Miller confirm that Miller's joke was inappropriate, to say the least. Watch and judge for yourself.

Related: Bill O'Reilly And Barney Frank Face-Off Over Fannie & Freddie

Steve Young: The Fairness Doctrine Is Just What The Right Needs

2008-11-12T14:25:47Z

The second best thing that could have happened to right wing talk radio would have been McCain winning the presidency. The first best thing: McCain losing.

Barack Obama's victory gift-wrapped the AM broadcast Lords of Loud's most excellent goody since Bill went Monica all over the Oval Office. They now have the four-year gift that they'll make sure just keeps on giving.

Think Reverend Wright's oft-repeated anti-American "not God bless America, G-d America" tirade - you would think if he had actually been doing this so incessantly for over 20 years, someone would have dug up another rant - has been placed in the archives? Not a chance. Less than a week as president-elect and the honeymoon that never was, is over.

Even when Fox News political reporter Carl Cameron told Fox News non-spinner Bill O'Reilly on Fox News cable, that McCain campaign officials told him that the dope on Palin was that she was a dope, there were some right wing talkers who hypothesized that the dirt was dished by the Obama campaign.

Which brings us all to the question of the Fairness Doctrine, or what radio's Lords of Loud call, READ THE REST OF THE FAIREST OF THE FAIREST DOCTRINE ANALYSIS HERE

Award-winning TV writer and author of Great Failures of the Extremely Successful, Steve Young was an original talk show host at L.A.'s KTLK and blogs at steveyoungonpolitics.com

Rick Horowitz: Post-Election: Call it Decompression

2008-11-11T15:14:02Z

He did the strangest thing last night: He turned the TV off.

There he was, still in the early part of the evening, with another hour or two of political shows still ahead of him -- updates and interviews and analyses and predictions -- and he reached for the remote and chose...

Silence. Blessed silence.

Don't get the wrong idea -- he wasn't shutting the world out completely. By that point in the evening, he'd already watched the network news, and something from the BBC, and Jim Lehrer. (He couldn't miss Jim Lehrer, could he?) He'd already read a newspaper or two, and part of a magazine, and surfed the net, and listened to NPR. Twice.

So he wouldn't exactly call himself unplugged. Saturated would be more like it. For the first time in -- well, who can even remember how long it's been? -- he found himself saturated. Sated. He suddenly preferred not watching to watching.

Who can even remember the last time he wasn't scarfing down every available bit of that amazing race for the White House? He can barely think of a time when there wasn't a campaign going on. And on. And on. And every minute of it absolutely compelling, fascinating, must-see TV.

That article a day or two ago that mentioned some semi-significant something that somebody had said way back in July of 2007? He'd been watching when it happened. That brief reference somewhere to some all-but-forgotten twist in the campaign trail so many months ago? He'd been watching when it happened -- and he hadn't come close to forgetting it.

But for last night? For the rest of last evening? He had finally had enough. The election was over, after all. He'd already done afterglow. He'd already done excuses. Also celebrating, recriminating, appointing, finger-pointing...

He could certainly take another spin around the dial: CNN. MSNBC. Fox. But he already knew all the news he needed to know, and at least for the moment, he had no appetite for the special seasonings each of them would surely be sprinkling onto the latest headlines. He --

Not true.

He peeked at Olbermann. He clicked the TV on midway through Olbermann, just to make sure nothing earth-shattering had happened while his guard was down. Five minutes, tops -- that's all it was. Just to make sure. Just to...

Where were we?

He had almost no appetite for the special seasonings each of them would surely be sprinkling onto the latest headlines. It was time to try something different.

But what? That was the question. This sudden block of uncommitted, middle-of-the-evening time staring him in the face -- no polls to peruse, no ads, no electoral maps -- and he was totally out of practice!

What, he asked himself, do non-obsessive people do? And an answer finally came to him: They can read books.

So he opened a book and started reading -- and not just for a few slapdash minutes before bedtime, but for the entire rest of the evening. It felt so strange. It felt so nice.

It was a book about FDR's first 100 days. You weren't expecting him to go cold turkey, were you?

Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com.

Peter Schwartz: Obama's Biggest Challenge: Foreign Policy Revanchism

2008-11-10T07:59:40Z

I run a small technology company in Seattle, and will normally focus my HuffPosts on business, culture, and technology. As we absorb the meaning of Barack Obama's election, however, I will launch my inaugural post with some thoughts on his biggest challenge as president: which will be facing down the coming assault from the revanchist, hard-right base of the Republican Party.

Swept from power and nursing deep wounds, loosened from the responsibility of governing and free to attack without any consideration for coalition-building or compromise, the surviving Republican members of Congress, in alliance with their media allies and their geographically insulated bases of support in the nether regions of the nation, will do their best to make Obama's life miserable. And let's not fool ourselves. The politics of falsely righteous Republican anger and contempt we witnessed throughout the presidential campaign will increase in intensity in 2009.

The Republican base is like a three-legged stool, drawing support from social (values-driven) conservatives; economic (free-market) libertarians; and militaristic (nationalistic) neoconservatives. Let's focus on the foreign policy neocons, those who led us down the bloody road to Iraq and who, like Sauron separated from his ring of power, will seek with great urgency to undermine and weaken those who stand between them and a return to the unilateralism of a hegemonic power.

Obama's foreign policy will begin with the assumption of a multilateral global arena in which the United States plays a leadership role based on alliances and diplomacy. Hardened, cynical views of international relationships - in China, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela, to name four examples - will challenge Obama's commitment to multilateral diplomacy. Nonetheless, in dealing with foreign leaders, Obama will have two assets on which to draw: his personal charm - which is so important in cultivating trusted relationships among leaders - and a willingness to leverage the influence of other countries, in Asia, Europe and elsewhere, in achieving tangible policy victories with respect to nuclear proliferation, global warming, and Islamic radicalism.

Obama's major challenges therefore will not come from abroad, but from home, where a steady drumbeat of revanchist criticism from the right, and blasted through media organs such as Fox News and the Wall Street Journal editorial page, as well as from Congressional firebrands in the Republican Party, will make his path from a military-first doctrine to a diplomacy-first approach like dancing across a bed of hot coals.

For now, Obama can bask in the glow of admiration from right-wing pundits such as William Kristol, George Will and Charles Krauthammer who respect his intelligence and political skills. For a sample of the savaging he can expect to receive in the days following his inauguration, we might do better to sample Daniel Henninger in the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal, Oliver North on Fox News, and John Bolton at the American Enterprise Institute.

Neoconservatives voice an ideology based on two self-reinforcing principles. The first is their belief in American exceptionalism, the idea that the United States is not "like" other nations, that we are superior by virtue of our history and our values. The second is that with the end of the Cold War, the world will plunge into chaos without strong, active directives from the United States. Let's be clear. Directives are not leadership. They are more like military orders, in this case supported by the global projection of American military power throughout the world.

As Chalmers Johnson observed presciently in Blowback, first published in 2000, the territorial projection of US military power - with more than 700 US military installations housing nearly one million troops, dependants, contractors, spies, in more than 130 other nations around the world - creates local resentments and reinforces the self-fulfilling prophecy of "enemies at our doorstep." The obvious costs of these deployments aside - both financial and political - we are dancing with the the Devil for more troubling reasons that Obama may only with difficulty be able to address.

The policy of force projection and maintenance of a global military infrastructure depends upon: 1) a web of payments and quid pro quos with non-elected leaders of other nations; 2) a commitment to secrecy and the absence of meaningful oversight and transparency; and 3) a reliance upon covert activity, spying, secret missions, and subterfuge (note revelations of the order permitting secret raids on Al-Qaeda around the globe, in nations such as Pakistan, Syria, and Somalia).

We need a foreign policy for the 21st century. Obama's success in transforming US foreign policy into a tool of constructive, meaningful engagement with other nations depends upon his ability to rebuild shattered relationships upon a new foundation of open communication, outreach, trust, and accountability. To build a foreign policy for the 21st century, Obama can draw upon the success and methods of his own political campaign, which used new technologies and means of communication already widespread around the world to reach and speak directly to individual Americans.

The problem Obama will face is in dismantling the structural outposts of our dated 20th century foreign policy driven by the strategy of force projection and a global military infrastructure. Our economy in great measure depend on this stimulus - let's call it "military welfare". Our concept of national security - both psychological and physical - also depends upon this policy, with its insinuating values of strength and of a proactive, global state of military readiness to address threats that by definition this policy frames as "us" against "them".

Let's be absolutely clear. Obama will need to draw upon all the reassuring calm he inspires to shift our sense of the world from one in which threat predominates to one in which opportunities for constructive relationships abound. He must adopt his superhero identity of Ocalma and resist what will surely be a strong impulse from White House advisers and Congressional allies to not appear "weak" when tested, not simply by foreign foes but by shrieking adversaries from the Republican right. Above all, he must work, slowly perhaps, but also steadily and with determination, to dismantle the global military web of bases and policies that have themselves been the source of anger and resentment contributing to our national insecurity.

O'Reilly's War On Christmas Goes Retail

2008-11-06T16:32:08Z

You know, as I walked up into the CVS across the street from my apartment a few days ago and saw the store festooned with Christmas decorations, I had two thoughts. First, I thought, "November 3rd! That's not so bad, actually!" And indeed, it wasn't: in previous years, area stores had their Christmas decor up before Halloween. But then I had another realization: namely, that the coming of the Christmas decorations brought an ill Yuletide wind along with it - the annual mindfrack that is Bill O'Reilly's War On Christmas.

It basically works like this. We live in a capitalist society, and consumer spending tends to increase during the Christmas season. To avoid alienating any customers during that peak period, many retailers have their cashiers say "Happy Holidays," because why not be nice? For centuries and centuries, this was totally fine with everybody because it made a lick of good sense. Then, one year, a bunch of feckless dimwits came to an extraordinary conclusion - saying "Happy Holidays" was "politically correct," and everyone who practices Christianity had the right to expect a complete stranger to recognize them as a Christmas practitioner by sight and specifically wish them "Merry Christmas," or else IT WAS WAR. Obviously, this latter position is the one you want to build an entire society around.

Bill O'Reilly has been, on a yearly basis, one of the most fervent and shrill public figures, wailing about the supposed War On Christmas, because he is precisely dumb enough to believe that Christianity, which has enjoyed an unprecedented run of absolute, total success in the United States - such that every single person who's run the country has been a Christian (and such that it's the only religious holiday in the world that's allowed to put their decorations up TWO MONTHS IN ADVANCE) - is actually fundamentally threatened each time a shop clerk opts to say "Happy Holidays." O'Reilly likes to cast himself as some sort of speaker of truth to power, but it's really all about his pinheaded sense of victimhood. Everyone else in the world needs to do O'Reilly a favor each Christmastime, despite the fact that Fox and News Corp. themselves fully embrace the use of "Happy Holidays."

Anyway, this has been a persistent fetish of O'Reilly's, and it never fails to make a mockery of people all over the world who truly are experiencing genuine religious oppression. Well that mockery has expanded into a retail division of its own, because now, if you buy O'Reilly's book A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity (which we remind you is an anagram for "Shameful, Bona-Fide Hypocrite"), you get one of these bumper stickers:

Stick it on your car and enjoy the perplexed looks from other motorists. I do love the pair of Fleur de Lis that bracket the text. Makes for a nice "unexpectedly swish" touch.

Stephanie Miller: Right Wing World from The Stephanie Miller Show

2008-11-03T15:10:04Z

Today's "Right Wing World" from The Stephanie Miller Show. This clip features Michael Savage on prop 8, Bill Cunningham getting "spazzy", Rose Tennant on the "devil" (one guess on who that is) and last but not least Bill O'Reilly.

Mike Sheehan: On the Waning Days of Madmen in the Media

2008-10-31T11:58:21Z

So some Hollywood insiders are sick of the decidedly liberal MSNBC, according to a report. One "liberal Democrat" actually said at a Beverly Hills luncheon "that she would prefer a lunch date with right-leaning Fox News star Sean Hannity over left-leaning MSNBC star Keith Olbermann." Egad. I wouldn't eat lunch with Sean Hannity unless it involved dining on his freshly-excised heart in front of him, though given its smallness I doubt it would make much of a meal.

But this woman's not alone, apparently. A very liberal friend of mine hates Olbermann too, saying "he's too brash," while another colleague has grown tired of the pontificating. I'm seeing the complaints piling up in the lefty blogosphere.

There's been a backlash against Olby steadily brewing and it's hard to argue that he hasn't brought it on himself, between his feverish channeling of Edward R. Murrow, the on-air catfights with fellow commentators, and the never-ending petty putdowns of hapless Republican morons.

Still, I'm cool with the big 'Mann; despite the ego, he's delivered memorable commentaries on the sad state of the nation and, most pointedly, the outrageous impunity with which the loathsome Bush White House has acted.

I will say this: Olbermann's gonna have some trouble with an Obama administration. He'll have difficulty, at least at first, finding things to get smug about and will harp on the littlest shit.

Picture his squinting eyes and puckered lips sourly delivering such lines as, "No chief executive in the history of this great nation has ever snubbed the assistant to the assistant ambassador of Guinea-Bissau. How dare you, Mr. President. Nobama, indeed!"

Unfortunately, Olbermann's already been booted from anchoring election night coverage on MSNBC because of perceived bias. That's unfortunate, because it would have made for some interesting television viewing, especially if FOX was daring and stupid enough to have Bill O'Reilly anchoring their election coverage at the same time.

I would've worn out my remote flipping back-and-forth on such a televised, partisan debacle. But while Olbermann's failed attempts to rein in his own vicious sarcasm would be fun, O'Reilly would be a scream... literally.

Imagine Papa Bear, trying desperately to contain his rage as state after state falls into the Obama column... pushing the FOX "they cheated!" line as red states go blue by the tiniest of margins... finally snapping in a silent TV studio as he awaits any good news for the right.

"WHERE'S THE GODDAMN NUMBERS FOR RHODE ISLAND?!?!?"

They'd make him stay on all night, well into the morning. He'd be bleary-eyed, disheveled and alternately lashing out and sobbing piteously.

"THESE EXIT POLLS ARE BULLSHIT! Augh... I'm sorry, ladies and gentlemen but-- but-- WHY, ZOGBY, WHY?!? AIEEEEEEE!!"

Finally at around two A.M. he'd throw his papers in the air and walk off the set, revealing that he hadn't been wearing pants the whole time.

Alas, it's not to be, and the days of craziness I fear are numbered. There'll be less misogynistic slobbering by Chris Matthews, less brain-dead blather from Steve Doocy, less fat-faced foolishness from Glenn Beck, etc.

Yep, with the sober and purposeful first 100 days of the Obama Age, I think we'll see the wild depravity of the media madmen we've been subjected to for eight long, hellish years begin to finally fade away, becoming as anachronistic as a print newspaper in an Internet café. The nation has grown tired of round-the-clock propaganda, spinnery, and idiotic shouting matches between professional antagonists. What will replace it is anyone's guess, but it can't get any worse.

Can it?

Steve Young: The Character Assassination of Al Franken...And His Characters

2008-10-30T10:35:15Z

The National Republican Senatorial Committee put out a kitchen-sink type ad in Minnesota Monday, accusing someone of writing pornography, laughing at the disabled, humiliating minorities and demeaning women.

And I thought Republicans liked Bill O'Reilly.

But I kid the NRSC.

Okay. The NRSC was taking a shot at Al Franken, and in his Minnesota Senatorial battle with Norm Coleman where Coleman felt necessary to call in the Marines. Um...Maroons...from Hollywood - aren't they all out there? - to explain why Al Franken is a terrible person.

John Ratzenberger, Robert Davi, Pat Boone and Victoria Jackson. No denying we're talking A-list Hollywood, but their standing in show biz should not be in question. They have just as much a right to speak as they do to perform their paid gigs. But when I hear those who say that "you are not your job" I'm guessing that more than most people, those in show biz (actors/comedians/singers) understand that when they do their job, they are most likely performing as someone they are not.

It's their job, not who they are.

Does John Ratzenberger believe that most mailmen are blithering idiots who live READ THE REAST OF THE ATTEMPTED ASSASSINATION OF AL FRANKEN'S CHARACTERS
Award-winning TV writer, Steve Young, is author of "Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" (www.greatfailure.com) and blogs at the appropriately named steveyoungonpolitics.com