My good old friend Bill O'Reilly made me grimace when he made a comment about Fox being "vastly outnumbered in the fight against evil." Now, in the context he was speaking in, I gathered that when he said "evil" he meant MSNBC and possibly even CNN. Hell, he probably meant any newspaper, TV news show, blog, or PSA that doesn't go out of their way to mention that Obama's middle name is "Hussein" every chance they get or refers to an bortion physician as a "doctor" instead of a "baby-killer."
I don't have a problem with Fox News any more than I have a problem with pretty much all news that we have available here in America, especially on television. Most of the air waves that are used up on "News" programs are riddled with commentary, analysis and opinion. News programs no longer stick to telling us what happened, they also tell us what to think about it. They say "We Report, You Decide," but its more like "We Decide, You Repeat." After all, what is a "Talking Points Memo" other than a directive for listeners to repeat the same arguments they hear.
My point is, Bill... meet kettle.
I also listened to Ed Schultz today try to explain how it was OK to talk about Dick Cheney's heart being a political football. He said something to the effect that we should remove Cheney's heart, beat it around and put it back in his chest. I'm sure that this wasn't his best choice of words that he has ever used in his life.
I'm tired of hearing all of these political speakers try and explain how what they say isn't as bad as what the other guy is saying. Can't just one of them step up and say "Sure, what I said was offensive and I should have worded it more carefully." Finger pointing is a desparate move.
Saturday, January 15, 2011
Wednesday, January 12, 2011
A New Year a New Me?
I'm starting this blog rather casually and hoping to spin it into something more formal and respectable. The fact is that I've never really stuck with anything other than the military long enough to make something of it.
I really have no clue about blogging and do not consider myself an outstanding writer. I do, however, hold hope that I will inspire myself to greatness by trying. I haven't truly decided what to focus my blog on (I hear it helps to have a focus) but I may never figure it out.
My first post so far is nothing more than sharing with the very, very few people who might actually read this how disappointing I expect this blog to be. Let's get away from that subject, shall we?
I suppose I should write about something that I feel passionate about. I have plenty to draw from there.
Let's start by talking about the most recent tragedy to befall our country: the Tucson, Arizona massacre. I'm not sure why we commonly call these "shootings." There is a definite difference in the words. Is "massacre" too strong for us to hear over and over again? Jonesboro, Columbine, Fort Hood, etc, etc, etc? Does calling it a "shooting" somehow make is softer and easier to bear? As a soldier and gun owner, I shoot a rifle from time to time. And so far, so good; every time I've had a "shooting" nobody has died. I've never actually needed to shoot at another person, thank God.
No, we must call it a massacre because it was performed with malice, hatred and most of all intent. In fact, it was an assassination attempt.
This is what leads me to what I'm really trying to get at. Yesterday, as I was watching the "talking heads" coverage of this latest massacre, I stumbled upon Bill O'Reilly. Now, I know that most of the time I don't agree with the things that this guy says, but for some reason I always listen to him freshly, expecting to find something (just something) that I can agree with. I was terribly disappointed to hear Bill completely politicize this tragedy. He spent several minutes finger pointing at those sitting on the left side of the room and comparing their reaction to massacres of recent history. Sorry, Bill, maybe I missed your overall point. I kinda tuned your whining out like I learned to do as a summer camp counselor with my class of 1st and 2nd grade children.
Now, I'm not the best poker player in the room, but you sort of tip your hand when you politicize a tragedy and then respond by pointing your finger and yelling, "Well, they politicized the last one!" Guilty, I say!
It didn't stop there. O'Reilly claimed that the murderer was just a 'psycho' and that his killing spree had nothing to do with the heated political tensions and increasingly inciting political rhetoric that has befallen this country since Obama's Health Care Plan passed as law.
The attack specifically targeted a publicly elected official. That makes it a politically motivated act. You cannot call this guy just a psycho and say that his motivations had nothing to do with politics. Every time we see one of these tragedies, there is some powerful motivator involved. The kids at Columbine blamed the 'Jocks' the postal worker was unhappy with his job. The fact is that even if this guy is a psycho doesn't rule out the factor that nasty political rhetoric that is riddled with references to weapons and warfare might have goaded or "triggered" him to take action (Please forgive that God-awful pun).
The last thing that made me irate was actually on the Rachel Maddow Show.I cannot find the gentleman's name, but he worked for the ATF and was supposedly an expert. Rachel was questioning
First and foremost, his answer offered nothing of value. At all. Sure, I'd be happy if 18 or so fewer people were hurt, but the sad fact is that people die whether he has a 12 round clip (plus one in the chamber) or a 30 round clip.
I wasn't too upset at the guy at this point. Sure he didn't offer anything of value, but at least what he said, although brutally common sense, was at least true. Rachel next questioned him about the type of magazine that he used in his Glock while he was in the service. He responded that he only had a twelve round clip and one extra round in the chamber so 13 bullets was the "maximum capacity of his service revolver."
Gwah?? Now, if Rachel had made the mistake of calling a Glock a "revolver" I might have given her a pass. No, not because she is female, but because she may not be a firearms expert. She may have never fired a weapon in her life or perhaps even touched one, I don't know. I don't expect that as a political news analyst that she is familiar with all the proper terminologies of hand guns.
But this guy is supposed to be an expert. He works for the bureau that regulates Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He served in the FBI and most assuredly has fired his service "revolver." Try saying "pistol" next time.
For those unfamiliar with firearms, a revolver is the one you see whenever russian roulette is depicted. It has the spinning mechanism and usually only holds about 6 rounds. As each is fired the cylinder that holds the rounds revolves to load prepare the next shot to be fired. A Glock on the other hand is a semi-automatic pistol. The rounds are loaded by a magazine. As the gun fires the slide is pushed back and as it springs forward catches the next round and pushes it into the chamber for the next shot.
I felt embarrassed for the man.
I really have no clue about blogging and do not consider myself an outstanding writer. I do, however, hold hope that I will inspire myself to greatness by trying. I haven't truly decided what to focus my blog on (I hear it helps to have a focus) but I may never figure it out.
My first post so far is nothing more than sharing with the very, very few people who might actually read this how disappointing I expect this blog to be. Let's get away from that subject, shall we?
I suppose I should write about something that I feel passionate about. I have plenty to draw from there.
Let's start by talking about the most recent tragedy to befall our country: the Tucson, Arizona massacre. I'm not sure why we commonly call these "shootings." There is a definite difference in the words. Is "massacre" too strong for us to hear over and over again? Jonesboro, Columbine, Fort Hood, etc, etc, etc? Does calling it a "shooting" somehow make is softer and easier to bear? As a soldier and gun owner, I shoot a rifle from time to time. And so far, so good; every time I've had a "shooting" nobody has died. I've never actually needed to shoot at another person, thank God.
No, we must call it a massacre because it was performed with malice, hatred and most of all intent. In fact, it was an assassination attempt.
This is what leads me to what I'm really trying to get at. Yesterday, as I was watching the "talking heads" coverage of this latest massacre, I stumbled upon Bill O'Reilly. Now, I know that most of the time I don't agree with the things that this guy says, but for some reason I always listen to him freshly, expecting to find something (just something) that I can agree with. I was terribly disappointed to hear Bill completely politicize this tragedy. He spent several minutes finger pointing at those sitting on the left side of the room and comparing their reaction to massacres of recent history. Sorry, Bill, maybe I missed your overall point. I kinda tuned your whining out like I learned to do as a summer camp counselor with my class of 1st and 2nd grade children.
Now, I'm not the best poker player in the room, but you sort of tip your hand when you politicize a tragedy and then respond by pointing your finger and yelling, "Well, they politicized the last one!" Guilty, I say!
It didn't stop there. O'Reilly claimed that the murderer was just a 'psycho' and that his killing spree had nothing to do with the heated political tensions and increasingly inciting political rhetoric that has befallen this country since Obama's Health Care Plan passed as law.
The attack specifically targeted a publicly elected official. That makes it a politically motivated act. You cannot call this guy just a psycho and say that his motivations had nothing to do with politics. Every time we see one of these tragedies, there is some powerful motivator involved. The kids at Columbine blamed the 'Jocks' the postal worker was unhappy with his job. The fact is that even if this guy is a psycho doesn't rule out the factor that nasty political rhetoric that is riddled with references to weapons and warfare might have goaded or "triggered" him to take action (Please forgive that God-awful pun).
The last thing that made me irate was actually on the Rachel Maddow Show.
Kenneth E. Melson
about the incident and how this might be prevented, obviously alluding to gun control. He responded by rattling on about extended clips and how if this guy would have had a standard clip he would have had half as many chances to kill people. I'm completely paraphrasing, but trust me, my words are more interesting.First and foremost, his answer offered nothing of value. At all. Sure, I'd be happy if 18 or so fewer people were hurt, but the sad fact is that people die whether he has a 12 round clip (plus one in the chamber) or a 30 round clip.
I wasn't too upset at the guy at this point. Sure he didn't offer anything of value, but at least what he said, although brutally common sense, was at least true. Rachel next questioned him about the type of magazine that he used in his Glock while he was in the service. He responded that he only had a twelve round clip and one extra round in the chamber so 13 bullets was the "maximum capacity of his service revolver."
Gwah?? Now, if Rachel had made the mistake of calling a Glock a "revolver" I might have given her a pass. No, not because she is female, but because she may not be a firearms expert. She may have never fired a weapon in her life or perhaps even touched one, I don't know. I don't expect that as a political news analyst that she is familiar with all the proper terminologies of hand guns.
But this guy is supposed to be an expert. He works for the bureau that regulates Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms. He served in the FBI and most assuredly has fired his service "revolver." Try saying "pistol" next time.
For those unfamiliar with firearms, a revolver is the one you see whenever russian roulette is depicted. It has the spinning mechanism and usually only holds about 6 rounds. As each is fired the cylinder that holds the rounds revolves to load prepare the next shot to be fired. A Glock on the other hand is a semi-automatic pistol. The rounds are loaded by a magazine. As the gun fires the slide is pushed back and as it springs forward catches the next round and pushes it into the chamber for the next shot.
I felt embarrassed for the man.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)