In this O'Reilly clip, we see a debate where O'Reilly is in his zone. He's outraged about the death of a little girl and illegal immigration is involved. And his interlocutor is Geraldo Rivera, who isn't going to cower and act submissive. He's going to hold his own and he does. O'Reilly knows he can roll out his righteous anger in a grandly theatrical way and he does.
It thoroughly serves his purposes. Look at the free promotion we're giving his show.
By the same token, Oliver Willis is serving his purposes by saying things like:
This is the leading face of cable news, right wing media, of the conservative voice in the media, and he's a freaking psycho. The kicker, O'Reilly concludes his tirade by saying "this is reason". Well, I guess that's what passes for it in today's MSM.And here I am promoting Willis's blog.
Posts
61 comments:
I saw it and hard to frame it as just a "right vs left" issue. They also knew they could go crazy on each other without any real damage. But there are two serious points involved, drunk driving and jurisdictions that choose not to enforce immigration law. Add in tragic deaths of two innocent young people and its a heated debate.
O'reilly is only conservative from a "cultural" point of view. He is not a conservative when it comes to economics and he leans towards the socialist global warmers. In fact regarding economics, O'reilly is nearly as dumb as they come. He believes that all of the oil companies conspire, etc...
O'reilly is more of a blue-collar populast conservative Democrat - He appeals to a segment of the population that used to vote with the Democrats until the Democrats abandoned them in favor of special interest groups.
He is right though about the media bias. The media ignores the stories about illegal immigrants committing crimes. Why? Illegal Immigrants commit a disproportionate amount of crime. It should be part of the dialogue. Bernie Goldberg pointed out on his show that if an illegal immigrant scored 1600 on their SAT and was rejected from a University for being illegal it would be splashed all over the front pages.
It's good that we have someone like O'reilly out there with influence. He is a gift.
I remember 10 or so years ago I was in a failing business partnership. One a.m. I walked into my office to start my day, only to find a ridiculing note sitting in my chair written by my partner. I became angry and immediately walked over to my ex-colleagues's office. He was sitting there with a wry smile on his face, holding a video camera. He mused, "if you get angry and loud I am going to videotape it for all to see". I immediately turned and left, got a lawyer who helped me end the partnership and stay reasonably calm during the process.
To this day, whenever I am on the verge of losing my cool I try to imagine how I might come across videotaped and on the local news and internet. Sometimes it helps, sometimes it dosen't.
Bottom line-I wouldn't want my children emulating Bill O'Reilly (or me when I lose it).
So Fox is now part of the MSM? Who knew?
As the Left moves even further left, I suppose pretty much anything other than the Worker's Daily and Mother Jones looks Right. Chris Matthews was recently heard calling the Washington Post a neocon publication.
Occasional outbursts of anger are part of the O'Reilly shtick, and they usually occur in the context of his high-priority issues. Any and all harm done to children is at the top of the list.
In Virginia, we're about to start providing subsidized "In-state" tuition at our state colleges to illegal aliens. I can understand at some level that the SCOTUS says we need to provide emergency health care and k-12 education, but subsidized college? I know we'll prosecute some kids from Maryland to lies on his financial aid application and uses his aunt's Alexandria VA address to get in-state tuition to UVA, but we won't prosecute an illegal from Mexico City that does the same.
strange
O'Reilly just doesn't realize he is extrapolating one issue into another political issue. He should understand better, this is no different than the Libby criminalization of politics. Geraldo is right, this tragedy has nothing to do with illegal immigration, but he didn't need to attack O'Reilly personally; that led to all the fireworks. Geraldo has a very personal attachment to this issue, being the son of immigrant Puerto Rican father. While both became angry, they did not surrender themselves to name calling.
sloan,
Illegal Immigrants commit a disproportionate amount of crime.
riveria said the opposite. please provide some evidence.
50% of the prison population in California are illegals. 20% of the federal prison population are illegals. 33% of the prison population in America are non-citizens.
These statistics are grossly ridiculous. It's outrageous that we allow this crime rampage to continue. We need to wake up and do something about it (the fence is a start). We need more fences.
I am not sure why Democrats support allowing so much open illegal immigration. It makes more logical sense as to why neocons support it (the low wage workers). The Democratic party of FDR or JFK would have never allowed such rampant illegal immigration. It is a strange mental disorder.
Your repeated attempts to color anyone to the left of far right as "socialist" are pathetic.
It is you who is on the fringe of American public opinion with respect to most issues, from Iraq to global warming. Far right fringe.
My repeated attempts?
I say it as it is. There are some who believe that we need the state to control or even the U.N to control Industrial output because they believe that man is ruining the climate. This is a fanatical position reminiscent of a society run by the clergy. It the very least it is socialism.
Fritz - I'm so tired of hearing people talk about the Libby "criminalization of politics." Its just not true.
If you don't care about global warming, it does put you on the fringe of public opinion. The far right fringe.
I do care about global warming. However, it is silly to think we have have much to do with it.
Instead we should put our efforts into trying to deal with global warming "if" it cause problems in the future rather than acting upon the thought that we - mankind - can actually influence in any meaningful way, the climate of the earth.
My immediate thought when I saw this last evening was, "Now there's an equal match!" Coulda watched another five minutes, easy.
Wade,
That is just what O'Reilly was trying to do, take one issue (drunk driving) and attach another political issue ( illegal immigration). Libby was the leak issue and attached to Iraq political issue. What are you missing?
"Anger = insanity."
Based on that, the entire leftosphere belongs in rubber rooms. It's just more intellectual incoherence from the left. Do they even read what they write?
but the consensus among scientists is that there's 95% chance that human activity contributes or causes global warming.
You mean a "consensus" among politicians...right?
I dont believe that the "man causing global warming" theory has ever been proven in a lab.
Business leaders who express concern about global warming, I'm convinced, are doing so for sound business reasons. Being "green" is the new "low fat" of marketing. Start looking at labels... it's not enough to *be* green, businesses have to advertise their green-ness.
And like Gore, they're going to make all the right noises and do a few of the right things to show they care about the Earth, but they aren't going to do anything that impacts their lifestyle or bottom line.
The socialism charges, as much as anything, are people taking the issue to its obvious conclusion. Does anyone who worries about it want to leave dealing with it to me? Me and everyone else making their own choices about their lives or nations making their own choices about their economic development?
If the general trend toward supporting cleaner air and water and the normal results of industrial development, which is wealth and an increased ability to chose cleaner ways of doing things. If free-choice is going to do it there wouldn't be the need for all the hoopla.
If something "must be done" then it must be done by someone who has the power to enforce compliance on all us deniers.
And Mark, "There is NO serious debate..." should be a warning sign for you that it's not about science.
Mark,
The only truth, 95% of greenhouse gases is water vapor, something man has no effect upon. Do you have any idea why CO2 was studied? Global cooling, the only manmade greenhouse gas we would be able to produce in abundant quantities. You want to build the Titanic to avoid icebergs. You are asking us to take measures that will change nothing, but may result in the same outcome. This "consensus expertise" are the same people that told us we would run out of oil by the year 2000, world over population, nuclear winter. When are we going to be able to hold these leftists accountable for their false predictions!
And Mark, "There is NO serious debate..." should be a warning sign for you that it's not about science.
Amen.
This lefty meme that anger equals insanity certainly should be nipped in the bud. Maybe you can get your friend Michelle Malkin to write about these wingnuts, as she delightfully calls them.
Sloanasaurus sprayed: "O'reilly is more of a blue-collar populast conservative Democrat"
Oh no he isn't. He is a loon and we sure don't want him, don't agree with him, and think he is a mindless bore.
To Geraldo's point - this is a drunk driving case. It is. Sure there are a lot of coulda, shoulda, woulda's involved but the act and actionable act is drunk driving. What comes after that is the second actionable offense which will unlikely fall under the jurisdiction of the drunk driving/probable homicide charges court.
and as to pulling Sloan into a global warming debate, you could fry his brain and it wouldn't matter to him or would he notice. don't waste the electrons. he is, in that area, too stupid for words.
Look, this is classic Willis and textbook Liberal passive aggressive hyperbole.
When it's a Conservative who combines righteous emotion with their point-at-hand, the Conservative is out of his mind. When it's a Liberal trashing someone else's right to speak, Liberals wallow in their moral justifications.
I appreciate the fact that I don't have to read morons like Willis, because you will do the reading for me, but frankly I think you give yourself a hard row to hoe in performing this service.
Sloanasaurus
Citation, please for your statistics about California's prison population being 50% illegal immigrants.
As it is an easily disproved lie, I'd like to know who is spreading it.
BTW, anyone who wants an accurate accounting of California's prison population would do well by consulting this report by the Public Policy Institute of California.
As it is an easily disproved lie, I'd like to know who is spreading it.
I believe that Lou Dobbs is the source for it. It's all over the net.
Your cite appears more valid, so I withdraw my previous statistic about the California Prison system.
Also because Lou Dobbs is not to be trusted.
sloan,
rather than acting upon the thought that we - mankind - can actually influence in any meaningful way, the climate of the earth.
why are you so sure about this? the concept of "nuclear winter" is not exactly a secret - you dont think that is "influencing" the world's climate? if you had ever gone to a highly polluted city, like rio, your religious certainty that man can't effect the planet would be not be so steadfast.
Oliver Willis?!
Didn't he use to write on the web or something?
Hmm... I think there's a useful distinction to be made between rational, civil expressions of anger and becoming unhinged in a red-faced, spittle-spewing way. The former is often helpful to the debate. The latter reveals a self-indulgance and irrationality that justifies one in discounting the speaker's credibility. In this context, I'm not quite sure what to make of it.
As pseudo-political theater, the scene is very entertaining, but quite possibly engineered. Given my low opinion of Bill, generally, I enjoyed seeing him lose control, but I can also recognize that his foaming-at-the-mouth routine was tasty red meat for the anti-immigrant crowd almost bordering on incitement.
Geraldo's response was much more compelling, independent of views on the immigration issue. He lost control a bit himself (the threat of taking Bill outside was a classic), but he was actually making an argument rather than just letting his emotions boil over.
While anger!=insanity, some kinds of anger -- whether unhinged or unprovoked -- make it alot harder to take someone seriously.
if you had ever gone to a highly polluted city, like rio, your religious certainty that man can't effect the planet would be not be so steadfast.
Maybe that is the problem. It's too many people in cities that think they can affect the earth's climate. Sure we can pollute a river or the air above cities for a while, but the Earth is a big place. Saying that we can materially contrinute to climate change is a much bigger if. Consider this:
Over the next hundred years at the current rate, we will use 1.26 Trillion barrels of Oil or 48 cubic miles of oil. It seems like a lot except all that terrible oil would barely show up on a map. For comparison, lake Superior holds 2900 cublic miles of water. All the oil that we will use in the next hundred years is only 1.9% of the water in Lake Superior.
If we burned all of the oil in the air and say it tripled in size to 150 cubic square miles, it would still occupy an infinitesimal amount of the volume of the atmosphere.
Your repeated attempts to color anyone to the left of far right as "socialist" are pathetic.
Actually, Sloanasaurus has a valid point. When the Berlin Wall fell, our socialists found cover in the Environmental movement and hijacked it. Climate Change issues are being used to further Global Socialism - redistribution of wealth via selective constraints on energy consumption and productivity.
Also, you can be concerned about socialists hijacking enviromentalism but still maintain that Global Warming is happening, and that we should adjust our behavior.
Oh, and Bill O'Reilly is a blowhard and easily ignored. For him, its all about ratings, not any political philosophy.
I believe that Lou Dobbs is the source for it.
Ah, the source explains everything I want to know about that lie now. Thank you.
Lou Dobbs is not to be trusted.
True.
sloan....
we will give you time to delete that idiocy you sprayed. if that is an indication of your understanding of global warming, well, it is undertandable how you come up with the BS you do...but it isn't forgiveable.
This is 2007 not 1210AD.
and FEN...you above all others on this board (plus your dopplegangers cedarford et al)...
should be first in line to adjust your bahavior.
Here is an article that says there are 48,000 illegal immigrants in California State Prisons.
http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2004/12/06/news/top_stories/19_56_5812_5_04.txt
According to Wikipedia, there are 170,000 inmates, putting illegals at about 24% of the prison population.
Scientific consensus used to say that the earth was flat, the sun revolved around the earth and that Negros were inferior to caucasians.
Beware concensus in science. Follow the money.
And yes, I have read alot of leftwing blogs where frothing incoherence posing as rational discourse reigns.
How else can one explain the adherence to the various ludicrous memes like "Bush lied" and "war for oil" and "Rove is an evil genius" garbage being bandied about with serious intent? Where medieval religious fanatics(who I have had the displeasure to fight) are freedom fighters and an all volunteer US military are just mindless dupes and where a war that has freed 2 nations from religious or fascist dictatorships is Imperialism.
So yeah from my perspective it is sheer lunacy. But, what do I know? I only have firsthand combat experience fighting the Islamists and Baathists.
with all due respect to your service sargent ted..
picking up a rifle in a war zone gives you expertise in picking up a gun in a war zone. it does not confer expertise to all things dealing with science and the scientific concensus. we have come a long way since midieval times. some of us, apparently not so far.
I believe that it is Ted's love for freedom that makes him an expert on the scientific consensus on global warming... It's freedom he would like to keep.
My military service has nothing to do with any expertise on globalony warming, it is true. But I never said that it did.
But, the science is far from settled as far as *what* is causing AGW. There are plenty of reputable scientists in the field who hold this position. Couple that with the religious-like fervor that AGW supporters denounce sceptics is enough to tell me that theres something fishy going on.
Also, the very same people who I think are completely wrong in their take on the Iraq war and the threat of Islamists to our freedoms are usually AGW supporters of the Al Gore kooky "the debate is over" variety. So, I don't trust them.
And yes indeed, it is my commitment to individual freedom that informs my scepticism regarding AGW and the top down "we're doing this for your own good" control freaks who seek to advance their anti-capitalist agenda under its aegis.
it does not confer expertise to all things dealing with science and the scientific concensus.
You're right, but saying there is no serious debate is beyond ignorant.
there is disagreement of course. is it serious and reasoned? no. is it serious and reasoned here? not at all. is it all political...like in democratic global warming? liberal high tides? leftest CO2?
just look around you. if that makes sense to you, ...talk about no child left behind.
hdhouse: we will give you time to delete that idiocy you sprayed...you above all others on this board should be first in line to adjust your behavior
Ha. You sound like a Grand Inquisitor. It says alot that your best response to skeptics is to launch insults. Where's all that "settled" Science?
and i think this thread is about OReally and losing his mind. Is there really a debate on that?
honey, can I rub your back? wanna take a shower with me? ohhhhh you turn me on. O'Really?
honey, can I rub your back? wanna take a shower with me? ohhhhh you turn me on. O'Really?
You are right again, there is no reasoned and serious debate here.
Worse, the 2nd-gen children of illegals are showing an even higher prediliction for crime and gang membership.
2nd-gen children of illegals, or, in other words, "legals"
SgtTed:
You say: "But, the science is far from settled as far as *what* is causing AGW. There are plenty of reputable scientists in the field who hold this position."
"plenty of reputable scientists " is a real stretch, especially when compared to the 1,000's who do feel it is humans who are the primary cause.
*The just-released Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policy Makers — the first volume of the IPCC's 4th Assessment Report — states that scientists are more than 90% confident that human industrial activity is driving global temperature rises.
Sloanasaurus said...
"It's good that we have someone like O'reilly out there with influence. He is a gift."
Yeah, kind of like finding out you have a tumor.
Fen,
You are a real hoot: "When the Berlin Wall fell, our socialists found cover in the Environmental movement and hijacked it."
Who exactly are..."our socialists"...and do you actually believe the environmental movement is really nothing more than "Global Socialism" gone wild??
Now, THAT is funny.
To David and all of the rest of you who agree with O'Reilly, answer me this: If the drunk driver was an American citizen who had not paid his taxes, would that make him worse than if he was current on his taxes? If he was late on his child support payment, would that make it worse? Both are crimes. Oh, but then most Americans are white, so its not as bad. Right? Right?
Of course, Professor Althouse is what this argument is really about -- isn't she?
Sloanasaurus said...
"I do care about global warming. However, it is silly to think we have have much to do with it."
Yeah, those silly scientists and their silly conclusions.
Duh.
"Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) Summary for Policy Makers.."
We're talking about the UN here ok? The same guys that took cash from Saddam Hussein.
These are the pronouncements of UN Beurocrats, who often leave out the science parts that are inconvenient to their goals. The last IPCC released summary had little relationship to what was in the actual report.
Again. Alot of scientists used to say Negros were inferior to whites.
They also used to be consensus that ulcers were caused by stress. They recently found out it was caused by bacteria. Who knew?
See, if there are reputable scientists with serious theories that run counter to the conventiona wisdom of AGW, that means, by definition, that consensus DOESN'T exist.
There's more direct evidence that Saddam Hussein had WMD than there is that supports AGW
Just because one group is given a microphone or that a bunch of jouralists have bought into it doesn't validate the science. Only more science can do that.
The only thing it means is that there are those willing to ignore one set of scientists and believe another set. So, we have dueling scientists.
If you want to believe in chicken little fantasies by discounting the scientists that disagree with your position go right ahead. Just don't try to inflict your unproven opinion on the rest of us in the name of "saving the planet".
Sgt,
Badmouthing the U.N. is ridiculous.
There were over 1,000 "scientists" involved in the research and conclusions.
Same ol' Republican talking points, over and over again...and if you really think there's little if any evidence of global warming you need to read more.
Sgt,
I forgot to ask: Who are all of these scientists who disagree?
How many can you name?
Sgt,
A correction. The report via the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change included 200 scientists, but there have been many other reports including scientists from around the world.
My bad.
Sgt,
2,500 "chicken littles?"
Dire warming report too soft, scientists say
Some nations lobbied for changes that blunt the study, contributors charge. The U.N. forecast is still bleak.
A new global warming report issued Friday by the United Nations paints a near-apocalyptic vision of Earth's future: hundreds of millions of people short of water, extreme food shortages in Africa, a landscape ravaged by floods and millions of species sentenced to extinction.
Despite its harsh vision, the report was quickly criticized by some scientists who said its findings were watered down at the last minute by governments seeking to deflect calls for action.
"The science got hijacked by the political bureaucrats at the late stage of the game," said John Walsh, a climate expert at the University of Alaska Fairbanks who helped write a chapter on the polar regions.
Even in its softened form, the report outlined devastating effects that will strike all regions of the world and all levels of society. Those without resources to adapt to the changes will suffer the most, according to the study from the U.N.'s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
"It's the poorest of the poor in the world, and this includes poor people even in prosperous societies, who are going to be the worst hit," said Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the IPCC, which released the report in Brussels.
The report is the second of four scheduled to be issued this year by the U.N., which marshaled more than 2,500 scientists to give their best predictions of the consequences of a few degrees increase in temperature. The first report, released in February, said global warming was irreversible but could be moderated by large-scale societal changes.
"Badmouthing the U.N. is ridiculous."
You have got to be kidding me.
Go ahead and worship the new Sacred Cow. Some 17,000 scientists signed a document disagreeing that Greenhouse gases are causing G;obal warming or that there was even AGW.
You can only come up with 2000. Or maybe you can come up with even more.
See? Thats the point. There is no consensus. Ignore it as you will, but there it is. I know for a fact that neither you nor I can know for sure.
It's not settled.Breathlessly declaring it is because some Government body says so is to be naive.
Sgt,
"There is no consensus."
You're flat out wrong. There may never be "unanimous" agreement, but there most certainly is a solid "consensus" among the scientists of the world.
As I said before, spouting the same bullshit talking points we can hear from Rush and the gang means nothing to those who base their opinion and beliefs on science.
I know youy are but what am I?
Oh, okay.
A new global warming report issued Friday by the United Nations
The UN IPCC is a political panel, not a scientific one.
Fen says: "The UN IPCC is a political panel, not a scientific one"
No scientists?
Duh.
Post a Comment