Monday, September 27, 2004
QUOTE OF THE DAY :"When angry, count to four; when very angry, swear." -Mark Twain
SONG OF THE DAY : Main Theme - OldBoy
LINK OF THE DAY : Only in the US would someone suggest nuking a hurricane to get rid of it.
Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight?
You sir are an asshole. But I'm stating the obvious.
Dear Bill O'Reilly
Why won't you ever learn? You've finally made it onto my page. I shouldn't even be writing this, but here I am... And there you are. I'm doing you a favour by even writing about you.
Now I know that you, as a member of the media, must be politically unbiased. However , since just last year you were a registered Republican voter. You also work for a little company called FOX News, and we all know how fair their reporting is. Believe me, it's not your political views I take issue with: it's the fact that you comment and interview under the auspices that you are in fact politically unbiased. You claim to be something your not, and that sir is called hypocrisy.
Sorry Bill, I'm ranting again. Perhaps I'm wrong about you. After all, I think a man who was a senior correspondent for a fine program like Inside Edition, must know a little bit about journalistic integrity. Your job is to report and interview without letting your personal views interfere, any good journalist would do this... As you no doubt already know.
So why am I writing this letter? Well I've taken issue with a few of the things you've said as of late. I make no claims that I'm politically fair, this is a blog after all, not a major network. I, like you, have my opinions. I'm entitled to express them here, because that's what a blog is : One giant opinion piece. Apparently people like to hear your opinions, and that's fine; but quit calling it journalism when it's actually just a veiled opinion piece. Just get a blog, and opinionate there if it will make you happy.
Wow... You sure do have some choice words for Canada.
"Now if your government harbours these two deserters, doesn't send them back . . . There will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting."
-- April 27, 2004, on air, after two U.S. soldiers fled to Canada to avoid serving in Iraq
God forbid a country is not in favour with the U.S.. If you have such an issue with France, why don't you go bomb them too? Could it be that the soldiers that deserted might have had a change of heart? Maybe they thought that blowing shit up isn't always the best course of action if you don't really have a good (or true!) reason.
"I got nothing against the Canadian people, but in the last few years you've swung dramatically to the left. And we in America have some questions about that."
-- April 30, to Canadian Press
Question away my Southern brothers! I have my own issues with the Liberal party, but my opinion is not at issue Mr. O'Reilly. We have moved a little bit to the left, but I think that "swinging dramatically to the left" you describe is more a case of the U.S. drooping perilously to the right. Since when was social moderation a bad thing? We'd still be burning people at the stake for witchcraft if we hadn't moderated a little.
"If you had us up there to balance CNN, you'd give people a choice, they'd hear other points of view. Not conservative points of view -- this is not a conservative network."
-- April 30, to Canadian Press
This so-called Liberal media bias you refer to is just untrue. As an outside observer, and former CNN junkie I know what to believe and not to believe on the network. I don't need to hear Neo-Conservatives on FOX News reporting about how liberally biased CNN is, I want them to report the news to me. Be the big man FOX News! Give me the news without a conservative spin or quit complaining about the other guys. You can't have it both ways.
"The truth is that the U.S.A. has freed more human beings in 230 years than the rest of the world combined. France has freed almost no one. Ditto Canada . . . I object to the anti-American foreign press and bums like Chirac in France and Chrétien in Canada."
-- July 8, on air
Oh Mr. O'Reilly, you're not very well informed. I'm not denying the great efforts and sacrifices made by the United States in both World Wars, the Korean War, The Gulf War and various other conflicts. I'd like to note though, that the U.S. did very little in these conflicts until it's interests were directly in jeopardy.
At the outbreak of World War One, the United States were neutral. The government did provide supplies, equipment and support to Britain, France and their allies (Canada among them), but let them fight the war on their own for 3 years! It was only when Germany threatened to reinstate its policy of unrestricted U-Boat warfare, (Something that would have jeopardized the U.S's commercial shipping interests) and the threat of a German-Mexican alliance(Endangering the U.S. proper of course), that the U.S. declared war on Germany... In 1917.
Again in World War Two, the United States provided support for the allies. The Lends Lease act was a great help. But the U.S. still remained legally neutral, for 3 years. While Britain, Canada, Russia and others fought the Nazi war machine head on. In October of 1941 the destroyer USS Reuben James was sunk by a German U-Boat, but even then the U.S. did not enter the war. It took Pearl Harbour to get you guys into the war. After all the 3000 people killed in Hawaii, were worth more than the 115 on the Reuben James.
The Korean War. We were all fighting the great beast of Communism. Spearheaded by the US, the war was aimed at keeping the South Korean puppet government in place, and two spread American style democracy. As we all know that conflict worked out well.
And ahhh the first Gulf War. Of course, eager to protect it's interests, the U.S. was eager to look out for it's two key allies in the region. Israel, a bastion of democracy in the middle-east : definitely good for the United States. And of course, Saudi Arabia, with their oil. Given the close relationship between the Bush and Saudi family, U.S. airforce planes were sent to Saudi Arabia 4 days after Iraq invaded Kuwait. However, it would take 6 months for the conflict-proper to begin, as the Iraqi military raped and ravaged their way through Kuwait with weapons and equipment paid for by the U.S. Only when SCUD missiles were positioned within striking distance of Israel and Saudi Arabia did the U.S. go in.
If by 'Freeing more human beings than anyone else combined' you mean assassinating democratically elected leaders and installing puppet dictators more in tune with U.S. policy, and carpet bombing, napalming and irradiating civilians in Vietnam and elsewhere... By all means call it that. The benevolent Americans freeing the world! SAVE US! SAVE US ALL!
Maybe the foreign press, and other world leaders wouldn't hold this opinion of the U.S. if you stopped pursuing this aggressive, unilateral foreign policy. Which world leader ever had a bad thing to say about Clinton? Not many did, because he was a multilateralist, which is seems most democrats are. I don't like people who are anti-American. I don't like Chirac, and I didn't like Chretien. I call many U.S. citizens friends. Why can't you see that when we question what you do, it's not necessarily out of anti-Americanism, but more because we're your friends, and want what's best for you and everyone else.
I can't write anymore, I don't want to waste anymore of my time on this.
Bill O'Reilly you need some sense punched into you. I'm not the biggest fan of Michael Moore, but he had a good point when he debated you at the Democratic National Convention. He asked you if you would send your own child to fight in Iraq given what you know now. You said you would go yourself.
If you don't want your child to fight knowing what you know... Why would you ask someone to send their own child? Or support someone who would ask the same thing?
All ranted out.
- Will Perkins
Monday, September 27, 2004
0 comments
SONG OF THE DAY : Main Theme - OldBoy
LINK OF THE DAY : Only in the US would someone suggest nuking a hurricane to get rid of it.
Is this a dagger which I see before me,
The handle toward my hand? Come, let me clutch thee.
I have thee not, and yet I see thee still.
Art thou not, fatal vision, sensible
To feeling as to sight?
You sir are an asshole. But I'm stating the obvious.
Dear Bill O'Reilly
Why won't you ever learn? You've finally made it onto my page. I shouldn't even be writing this, but here I am... And there you are. I'm doing you a favour by even writing about you.
Now I know that you, as a member of the media, must be politically unbiased. However , since just last year you were a registered Republican voter. You also work for a little company called FOX News, and we all know how fair their reporting is. Believe me, it's not your political views I take issue with: it's the fact that you comment and interview under the auspices that you are in fact politically unbiased. You claim to be something your not, and that sir is called hypocrisy.
Sorry Bill, I'm ranting again. Perhaps I'm wrong about you. After all, I think a man who was a senior correspondent for a fine program like Inside Edition, must know a little bit about journalistic integrity. Your job is to report and interview without letting your personal views interfere, any good journalist would do this... As you no doubt already know.
So why am I writing this letter? Well I've taken issue with a few of the things you've said as of late. I make no claims that I'm politically fair, this is a blog after all, not a major network. I, like you, have my opinions. I'm entitled to express them here, because that's what a blog is : One giant opinion piece. Apparently people like to hear your opinions, and that's fine; but quit calling it journalism when it's actually just a veiled opinion piece. Just get a blog, and opinionate there if it will make you happy.
Wow... You sure do have some choice words for Canada.
"Now if your government harbours these two deserters, doesn't send them back . . . There will be a boycott of your country which will hurt your country enormously. France is now feeling that sting."
-- April 27, 2004, on air, after two U.S. soldiers fled to Canada to avoid serving in Iraq
God forbid a country is not in favour with the U.S.. If you have such an issue with France, why don't you go bomb them too? Could it be that the soldiers that deserted might have had a change of heart? Maybe they thought that blowing shit up isn't always the best course of action if you don't really have a good (or true!) reason.
"I got nothing against the Canadian people, but in the last few years you've swung dramatically to the left. And we in America have some questions about that."
-- April 30, to Canadian Press
Question away my Southern brothers! I have my own issues with the Liberal party, but my opinion is not at issue Mr. O'Reilly. We have moved a little bit to the left, but I think that "swinging dramatically to the left" you describe is more a case of the U.S. drooping perilously to the right. Since when was social moderation a bad thing? We'd still be burning people at the stake for witchcraft if we hadn't moderated a little.
"If you had us up there to balance CNN, you'd give people a choice, they'd hear other points of view. Not conservative points of view -- this is not a conservative network."
-- April 30, to Canadian Press
This so-called Liberal media bias you refer to is just untrue. As an outside observer, and former CNN junkie I know what to believe and not to believe on the network. I don't need to hear Neo-Conservatives on FOX News reporting about how liberally biased CNN is, I want them to report the news to me. Be the big man FOX News! Give me the news without a conservative spin or quit complaining about the other guys. You can't have it both ways.
"The truth is that the U.S.A. has freed more human beings in 230 years than the rest of the world combined. France has freed almost no one. Ditto Canada . . . I object to the anti-American foreign press and bums like Chirac in France and Chrétien in Canada."
-- July 8, on air
Oh Mr. O'Reilly, you're not very well informed. I'm not denying the great efforts and sacrifices made by the United States in both World Wars, the Korean War, The Gulf War and various other conflicts. I'd like to note though, that the U.S. did very little in these conflicts until it's interests were directly in jeopardy.
At the outbreak of World War One, the United States were neutral. The government did provide supplies, equipment and support to Britain, France and their allies (Canada among them), but let them fight the war on their own for 3 years! It was only when Germany threatened to reinstate its policy of unrestricted U-Boat warfare, (Something that would have jeopardized the U.S's commercial shipping interests) and the threat of a German-Mexican alliance(Endangering the U.S. proper of course), that the U.S. declared war on Germany... In 1917.
Again in World War Two, the United States provided support for the allies. The Lends Lease act was a great help. But the U.S. still remained legally neutral, for 3 years. While Britain, Canada, Russia and others fought the Nazi war machine head on. In October of 1941 the destroyer USS Reuben James was sunk by a German U-Boat, but even then the U.S. did not enter the war. It took Pearl Harbour to get you guys into the war. After all the 3000 people killed in Hawaii, were worth more than the 115 on the Reuben James.
The Korean War. We were all fighting the great beast of Communism. Spearheaded by the US, the war was aimed at keeping the South Korean puppet government in place, and two spread American style democracy. As we all know that conflict worked out well.
And ahhh the first Gulf War. Of course, eager to protect it's interests, the U.S. was eager to look out for it's two key allies in the region. Israel, a bastion of democracy in the middle-east : definitely good for the United States. And of course, Saudi Arabia, with their oil. Given the close relationship between the Bush and Saudi family, U.S. airforce planes were sent to Saudi Arabia 4 days after Iraq invaded Kuwait. However, it would take 6 months for the conflict-proper to begin, as the Iraqi military raped and ravaged their way through Kuwait with weapons and equipment paid for by the U.S. Only when SCUD missiles were positioned within striking distance of Israel and Saudi Arabia did the U.S. go in.
If by 'Freeing more human beings than anyone else combined' you mean assassinating democratically elected leaders and installing puppet dictators more in tune with U.S. policy, and carpet bombing, napalming and irradiating civilians in Vietnam and elsewhere... By all means call it that. The benevolent Americans freeing the world! SAVE US! SAVE US ALL!
Maybe the foreign press, and other world leaders wouldn't hold this opinion of the U.S. if you stopped pursuing this aggressive, unilateral foreign policy. Which world leader ever had a bad thing to say about Clinton? Not many did, because he was a multilateralist, which is seems most democrats are. I don't like people who are anti-American. I don't like Chirac, and I didn't like Chretien. I call many U.S. citizens friends. Why can't you see that when we question what you do, it's not necessarily out of anti-Americanism, but more because we're your friends, and want what's best for you and everyone else.
I can't write anymore, I don't want to waste anymore of my time on this.
Bill O'Reilly you need some sense punched into you. I'm not the biggest fan of Michael Moore, but he had a good point when he debated you at the Democratic National Convention. He asked you if you would send your own child to fight in Iraq given what you know now. You said you would go yourself.
If you don't want your child to fight knowing what you know... Why would you ask someone to send their own child? Or support someone who would ask the same thing?
All ranted out.
- Will Perkins
Monday, September 27, 2004
FipiLele
