O’Reilly sticks it to Sean Penn

Posted on October 2, 2007. Filed under: writing |

So I finally got around to tuning into the O’Reilly radio factor today. His show overlaps with Rush’s in the morning here in Portland and so I decided Rush was just going to have to sit on the bench today and rest ye ol’ jowls.

Doing a little contrasting and comparing…O’Reilly’s show is actually quite different from the solo acts of Rush and Michael Savage. He does represent himself as being “fair and balanced.” Yes, I know you liberals, just bear with me now, and conservatives take heart, I myself am trying to be fair and balanced. While I’m not saying that O’Reilly is actually fair and balanced it is noteworthy that he takes this position because as you know he doesn’t have to. Or at least I don’t think he does working for Fox and such. So he’s got this co-host named E.D. Hill on with him during the last hour of his show I guess to provide comic relief and to add that “liberal” flair in the same manner that Alan Colmes provides the “liberal” viewpoint on Fox’s Hannity and Colmes hour. But really she doesn’t say a lot. She probably is more liberal than O’Reilly but that ain’t saying much. What she does do is laugh and act like a silly intern who’s in love with her boss. (Hmm, sound familiar). Instead of countering O’Reilly with facts she just kind of pleads with him and laughs taking a “well I think I’m right” carefree attitude to the whole thing like she did today when she disagreed with O’Reilly on whether or not Sean Penn was a legitimate or illegitimate dissenter.

So O’Reilly used Bruce Springsteen and Sean Penn to demonstrate the idea of a legitimate and an illegitimate dissenter. According to O’Reilly Bruce is legit and Sean Penn is illegit. Why? What does this all mean? I don’t know. But I do know that Bruce is good because he likes cheeseburgers and the Jersey shore and Sean is bad because his father was a leftist writer, because he makes nice with the likes of Hugo Chavez and maybe even because he has a big nose. Therefore, Penn is bad. The O’Reilly logic further descends into madness. So a legitimate dissenter is a person who loves burgers and America and who is also a person who can back up their dissension with facts. An illegitimate dissenter is a person who doesn’t love burgers or America and can’t back up their statements with facts. The funny thing is that in the clips O’Reilly used neither entertainer could back up their statements with facts. So in that case, wouldn’t they both be illegitimate dissenters? Are you confused yet? I feel like I’m trying to decipher a bad paper from comp 101. Ugh. It is a scary hobby I have, delving into the brains of madmen. I’m left with one question. Is there a difference between legitimate spin and illegitimate spin?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

“World Have Your Say” tiptoes towards farce

Posted on July 13, 2007. Filed under: BBC, bizarre news, conservative, entertainment, environment, funny, humor, journalism, liberal, life, media, politics, radio, talk radio, writing |

Do you remember way back when you were in college and you were forced to take that stupid senior seminar class in order to graduate? Remember it really didn’t have much point except to force you into class with people you hadn’t seen in four years just to discuss irrelevant politically correct bullshit? Remember that girl from that class who doesn’t ever shut up and she just keeps talking and offering her unending sermon on how the world is just so unfair and how everyone needs a break and how if everyone just spent a month hand feeding starving babies in Uganda like she did last semester that the world would be a better place? Well, in case you’ve forgotten how craptastic that class was tune into the BBC’s “World have your say.” Not every city in the US is graced with this waste of bandwidth-but Portland is! Yeah!

Now why would a respectable news organization like BBC numb my brain with over-excited, comically British hosts discussing the recent cock-fighting ban in Louisiana?! Big world news item, folks. Move over Iraq and Osama-we gots us a big story here! But it’s not just a story, folks. We got Johnny-two-teeth straight outta the bayou and he’s mad as hell that his cocks got done and banned and we got Ronny-do-gooder from the big city who thinks chickens should have equal rights and they’re gonna go at it on international radio and we’re gonna show the world how America’s talking about chickens with knives strapped to their ankles while the rest of the world goes to hell!

Normally I’m immune to conspiracy theories, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find out if Hamas had orchestrated this entire broadcast…and liberals wonder why conservatives make fun of them…

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

Michael Savage compares Republicans to a bad Chinese restaurant

Posted on July 5, 2007. Filed under: am radio, conservative, entertainment, funny, humor, liberal, life, media, politics, radio, talk radio, writing |

Even Savage has his quiet days. Even Savage gets tired of being savage-he simply didn’t want to discuss politics. So in between railing against Allen Ginsberg (aka the devil!) and his nostalgia for Italian cooking served by little old Italian ladies in black Savage made the hilarious analogy that Republicans (and Democrats he added later) are like a bad Chinese restaurant where you get overcharged for crappy service-where the quality of the food just keeps going down and the price just keeps going up. Out of habit you keep going back and you want to believe that it’s going to be good but you inevitably end up disappointed. Are humans fundamentally positive or just foolish? Hmmm. I think I’m going to order some take out…

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Rush is old school now compared to Savage

Posted on June 14, 2007. Filed under: am radio, conservative, entertainment, journalism, liberal, life, media, politics, radio, writing |

Rush seems to be turning into the aging old jolly gentleman of talk radio compared to Savage.  Personally, I enjoy listening to Rush a lot more than I do Savage.  Mike Savage comes across as an angry lunatic half the time with his biased interpretations of history and his occasional Bible thumping and his war cries.  Although I do enjoy his Randy Rhodesque comments like “this topic gives me dyspepsia.” Not to mention his dated commie pinko rampages and his riotous “liberalism is mental disorder” slogan.  The thing I enjoy about Rush is that he wants to engage in debate.  He gets really annoyed that liberals don’t listen to his show (I do!)  but Savage is simply way too polarizing and I’m not sure he wants a debate.  He is right, just that.  Hmm, sounds familiar.  Some of my fellow liberals hear that I listen to am radio and they eye me suspiciously like I’m some kind of traitor.  No, just listening.  Nothing wrong with listening and engaging in debate.  Isn’t that what this country is about?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 3 so far )

Hats off to Mick Gregory, but…and I do have a big but

Posted on June 13, 2007. Filed under: am radio, conservative, entertainment, humor, journalism, liberal, life, media, politics, writing |

I’m really excited about what the internet has done for writers.  But here’s my beef.  So we get all this great information and all this online readership (none of which I have, I’m a newbie, forgive, we all get started somewhere, right?) but what about people like our parents who are used to getting news from one, two, maybe three sources that provide lots of info from many different people.  How do we appeal to this crowd?  Should we?  We all have these great blogs but there is no big forum.  What exactly is the new journalism?  Most people aren’t journalists, aren’t writers.  They want their news packaged and delivered on their doorstep.  This doesn’t make them bad people, this is most of America.  These are the folks that tune in for a few minutes and want to make a decision based on our research.  I think citizen journalism is the new order for writers and muckrakers but our we speaking to the choir?  What about the people that aren’t online, that have a voice but they’re still reading the local newspapers?  Is it our obligation as information detectives to deliver something to them in a complete package?

Is too much information going to be our problem as online writers?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Do you let the media think for you?

Posted on June 13, 2007. Filed under: am radio, conservative, humor, liberal, life, media, politics, radio, writing |

I remember listening to left wing local radio in the nineties here in Portland and one of the big knee jerk liberal complaints back then (still is to a certain degree) is that the media is right wing and the official voice of Rupert Murdoch and like minded conservatives who had a stake in media.  But according to many conservative talking heads the media is owned by rich liberals.  Do I live in a parallel universe or what?  Has it always been this way?  Isn’t the media an entity of its own, a business, an animal interested in its own self-preservation?  Or is it simply the blame game?  If you don’t like what you hear it’s time to point fingers and say BAD NEWS  you must belong to the other team.   Personally, I’m a little tired of this finger pointing.  Of course media is biased.  There is no thing as true journalism.  Journalists are some of the most opinionated people in the universe.  Why else get involved in the arena?  Of course media is slanted.  That’s why we live in a free country where you can-like me-switch back and forth between 620 and talk am radio, read the newspaper, research online, talk to your friends and neighbors, and eegads, come to your own damn conclusion!  Anyone ever hear about thinking for yourself?  Are we that lazy that we have to let other people do the thinking for us?  What, you graduate from college, decide what side your on and that’s the end of listening to other opinions!

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Rush insists conservatives don’t want to control you.

Posted on June 12, 2007. Filed under: entertainment, environment, humor, life, media, politics, radio, writing |

Today our favorite fat man was annoyed that the British government is trying to promote vegetarianism as a means to fight global warming and promote health.  And true to form Rush linked vegetarianism immediately to big government and, you guessed it to liberalism.  According to Rush liberals want to control you more than conservatives via big government.  Something strange was missing in the argument.  Like amendments against gay rights and laws making abortion illegal.  Sure, conservatives don’t want to control what you do.  As long as you adhere to their standards of morality you can do whatever you want…

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 11 so far )

Rush compares Paris Hilton to Global Warming

Posted on June 10, 2007. Filed under: entertainment, funny, humor, life, media, politics, radio, writing |

As of last Friday Rush compared the whole Paris Hilton ordeal to global warming in that the “drive by media” insists on feeding us escapist garbage in order to deter “us” from “real” issues.  So if global warming is an escapist endeavor what the hell is golf?  Come on Rush,  can’t you do better than that?

I wasn’t going to comment but I feel obligated.  The spin is doing what here?  A lot, actually.  This is a great move on Rush’s part.  Comparing a celebrity’s wrongdoings with a complex, controversial issue further removes his listeners away from real social problems that they don’t have to deal with.  Well, if I don’t have any say in what happens with Paris Hilton why the hell should I worry about polar bears and hail in July?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

Rush shows “Cin”pathy

Posted on May 29, 2007. Filed under: humor, life, media, politics, radio, writing |

Rush announced today that Cindy Sheehan gave up the fight.   Go to any news outlet and you’ll get the scoop.  The woman, the mom, is frustrated.  Do you blame her?  Her son died and she needed to do what any mom would do.  Point fingers and blame someone.  But the fact is that her son was in our voluntary military and died in what she claimed was an unjust war.  Okay, but you know what?  Her son served us.  Unfortunately, he died.  So Rush concludes Cindy was a pawn in the democrats machine.  I disagree.  Cindy was, is a frustrated citizen and her son got caught under the wheel.  I’m sure she is disenheartened by both parties.  I think that her whole appeal was the fact that she became politically active as a part of her grieving.  She’s just another mom with another dead soldier as a son.  And you know what?  It sucks.  There’s no way getting around it.  I think that she is over the anger and now the grief is setting in.  Her son isn’t coming back.  Who are the real pawns?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Who gave Rush Limbaugh a degree in biology?

Posted on May 29, 2007. Filed under: entertainment, funny, humor, life, media, radio, writing |

The global warming issue is the main issue on am radio that makes me a little insane. As an agnostic and a person of science I find the whole matter really, totally a disaster in the making. First, you simply can’t discuss real science on am radio. First and foremost, Rush and the like are entertainers. This is where the average am radio listeners go head first into the bush without survivor skills and the proper equiptment. It’s a little like listening to your drunk uncle tell you that the reason trees are green is because green is God’s favorite color. Ah, where to begin…

I’ve got a lot to offer on this “debate” over global warming but I’m going to start with this. First of all, does is matter? Isn’t it beneficial to the earth to create and maintain sustainable practices? Yes. Second, it’s easier to be in denial. That way you can maintain your status quo without changing anything. Part of understanding these people is understanding their mentality as well as their motives and their funding. Rush loves his green golfcourses and what is more important to him is that the courses stay green. Put yourself in his fat little shoes for a moment. Rush doesn’t believe in global warming because he doesn’t want to-an alcoholic doesn’t want to believe he is an alcoholic because he will have to change not only the lifestyle that he (yes or she) has become accustomed to he will have to make new friends, give up the old, re-evaluate his entire life, and, give up his favorite old friend, booze. Same with Rush. All these guys are united in their denial of global warming because it serves them. Not because it is good for them.

I predict that the past will win and these guys will slowly change their tune. When global warming becomes solid fact and less a partisan issue, when it becomes a fact even for the fattest oil company it’s simply going to be true. Science and politics have always been in conflict and what we are experiencing now is nothing different. Of course, it takes time. The Catholic Church, after all, just recently decided that maybe Galileo was right. The earth, I guess, does in fact revolve around the sun. But isn’t it more fun to surmise that the sun serves us?

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...