Gov. Sanford and His Many Mistresses

2198176059_4d81e838b9

“It‘s a love story. A tragic one, a forbidden one ..”

Mark Sanford expressed in a recent interview that he felt that his Argentine mistress was his ’soul mate’ and noted a sense of mortality surrounding his decision to commit adultery on his wife. But in the same interview he revealed that this was not his only mistress but was the only woman other than his wife in which he engaged in intercourse with.

To me this notion of a fleeting sense of your own morality that the governor eluded to would not be any sort of excuse to commit adultery but rather a reason to strongly consider divorce and pursue a new life with this newfound ‘soul mate’ in Argentina. Even more so if he was violating his marriage vows with other women already.

More than anything else Governor Mark Sanford proved today to the discerning public that he holds no regard whatsoever for his wife and his marriage.

Be it maintaining his public imagine and political position or simply caring more for his carnal desires than he does for his commitment to his wife.

In regards to the resignation of Mark Sanford from office I have a neutral opinion. If the people of South Carolina believe he should do this, then he is obliged to do so immediately. Otherwise I think the entire scandal simply goes to character.

The character of Governor Mark Sanford is clear to any who care to know.

What irritates me is the likes of Lindsey Graham coming forth to declare Mark Sanford as ‘only human’ in an attempt to elevate the character of the governor for what I believe are purely political motives.

The stain of poor character sheds itself only to a small degree to The Republican Party. Yet their representatives insist on standing up for a man who pursued his ‘forbidden love’ in place of his marriage at the cost to his family and his character in the public arena.

This man is a disgrace and I send my personal condolences to his wife and his children.

 

 

How Responsible is O’Reilly in Tiller’s Murder?

Crooks & Liars : Bill O’Reilly uses Private Long’s murder to try and justify his demonization of Dr. Tiller by John Amato

Raw Replay : Howard Kurtz excuses Bill O’Reilly’s incitement of violence against George Tiller by David Edwards

In terms of criminal responsibility to Bill O’Reilly or FOX Broadcasting in the murder of Dr. George Tiller, I can see none.

In terms of moral and civic responsibility, I see plenty. I believe it to a shameful state of affairs in America today that I am a ‘far left’ blogger for demanding responsible broadcasting and moral standards in addressing social issues like abortion and women’s reproductive health.

The crazies will do what they do.

Bill O’Reilly is not responsible when a lunatic reads his book and murders fourteen people in a church, nor is he responsible when a man watches his broadcasts and goes out and kills a man over it. In a legal sense this is true. In a moral sense Bill O’Reilly has blood on his hands for passing along biased and jaded perspectives on liberalism in America and his outrageously dangerous and slanderous coverage of Dr. Tiller.

The responsibility of a broadcaster is vapid in terms of serious social issues and FOX Cable News, not in anyway exclusive to The O’Reilly Factor.

Just tonight Geraldo Rivera made insinuations of vigilante violence against a child molester in Oklahoma in the course of denouncing vigilante violence himself.

The fact remains that the both the network and the broadcasters themselves have a responsibility to the public they serve to protect the lives of all citizens and protect the due process of law.

By calling Dr. Tiller a ‘killer’ repeatedly on the air Bill O’Reilly risked inciting violence.

By vaguely insinuating that the Oklahoma child molester might be killed and have his body dumped on the side of the road Geraldo Rivera risked inciting violence.

The responsibility to the community for news broadcasting that does not risk the incitement of violence in the nation is fundamental to our domestic security as a nation.

This entire issue has absolutely nothing to do with an individual political agenda on my accord and I am willing to retract my provocative statements in regards to Mr. O’Reilly provided he states clearly to the public that he will no longer use his media platform to play dangerous games with people’s lives and then follows through on this promise.

Mine is a cry for an end to irresponsible broadcasting coming from FOX News.

For whatever failures of bias to found on vast quantity both on MSNBC and FOX, there is only one network inciting violence and using radical right wing propaganda to do more than simply share an alternative perspective. Quite often the network is used as an agent for unscrupulous pundits to gamble with the safety of physicians and the liberal population of America.

Ultimately, I believe these people have become drunk off their own power and will never admit their own misdeeds let alone their own inability to recognize their contributions to a climate of violence in America.

As long as the public continues to support their ‘crusades’ they will remained deluded and ignorant to the harm they cause in their wake. When the veil of public approval is lifted it becomes clear that these men will say anything to get ratings and if that means risking inciting violence, then so be it.

The O’Reilly Half-Apology for Tiller Murder

O’Reilly: “I would say we have covered this story passionately.”
O’Reilly: “Now if something happens to this Oklahoma rapist guy, they are going to try to blame us for it.”

Geraldo: “You mean like the Tiller thing.”

Geraldo: “If this guy [child rapist] was found on the side of the road I wouldn’t shed one tear.”

O’Reilly: “When someone does something like the person who killed Tiller and engages in vigilante violence they commit just as immoral an act as this rapist in Oklahoma.”

I finally agree with Bill O’Reilly on something and have lost a good deal of respect for Geraldo Rivera.

Bill O’Reilly brought this up as a chance to defend himself and I think he made his case well. I still think he engaged in irresponsible broadcasting in the past but not tonight.

Tonight the mantle of Irresponsible Broadcaster of FOX Cable News is: Geraldo Rivera.

I think he is pretty deluded to think that denouncing vigilantism and eluding to it in the same statement is anything but ironic and sad.

Passionate reporting is one thing, and making vague statements about people being killed or otherwise harmed is very possibly why someone like me might declare The O’Reilly Factor as inciting domestic terrorism.

I wouldn’t shed one tear if Mark Sanford is found on the side of the road.

Freedom of speech.

As if I care to defend rapists. I only seek to point out that vigilantes exactly as immoral as the ones they wish to kill.

And we only hear this little bit of sanity from Bill O’Reilly well after the fact he crusades against all liberals and against Dr. Tiller.

I still thank him for it. Let his minions absorb this deep into their minds.

That they are no more than child molesters when they go and ’save some babies’ with a gun.

 

 

April 11, 2008: President Bush Admits to Knowing of High-Level Approvals of Torture

President Bush admits he knew about his National Security Council Principals Committee’s discussion and approval of harsh interrogation methods against certain terror suspects. Earlier reports had noted that the Principals—a group of top White House officials led by then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice—had deliberately kept Bush “out of the loop” in order for him to maintain “deniability.” Bush tells a reporter: “Well, we started to connect the dots in order to protect the American people. And yes, I’m aware our national security team met on this issue. And I approved.” Bush says that the news of those meetings to consider extreme interrogation methods was not “startling.” He admitted as far back as 2006 that such techniques were being used by the CIA. But only now does the news of such direct involvement by Bush’s top officials become public knowledge. The Principals approved the waterboarding of several terror suspects, including Khalid Shaikh Mohammed; Bush defends the use of such extreme measures against Mohammed, saying: “We had legal opinions that enabled us to do it. And no, I didn’t have any problem at all trying to find out what Khalid Shaikh Mohammed knew.… I think it’s very important for the American people to understand who Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was. He was the person who ordered the suicide attack—I mean, the 9/11 attacks.” [ABC News, 4/11/2008] Bush’s admission is no surprise. The day before Bush makes his remarks, law professor Jonathan Turley said: “We really don’t have much of a question about the president’s role here. He’s never denied that he was fully informed of these measures. He, in fact, early on in his presidency—he seemed to brag that they were using harsh and tough methods. And I don’t think there’s any doubt that he was aware of this. The doubt is simply whether anybody cares enough to do anything about it.” [MSNBC, 4/10/2008]

Exception to Torture

18 US Code 2340 — Exception to Torture

“Torture means an act of a person acting under color of law to inflict severe physical and mental pain other than pain and suffering to lawful sanctions upon another person under lawful physical custody or control.”

This statute combined with the Justice Department memos seeking to define ‘enhanced interrogation’ as legal sanction are the method by which the Bush administration violated the US Constitution through the approval of cruel and unusual punishment on military detainees as part of lawful sanctions.

Many who use the word ‘torture’ on both sides of the argument fail to recognize this statute in it’s existence. I do not. Those who committed acts of torture as defined by US Legal Code should face prosecution for their acts no matter if they belong to an agency of US origin or not. The Nuremberg Defense is invalid. If your commanding officer orders you to commit torture you are bound by law to resign rather than accept the orders.

The US Supreme Court has rejected the argument that holding military detainees indefinitely is constitutional, stating that habeas corpus (the right to speedy trial) must be granted to terrorism suspects.

The United States Constitution applies as to persons and not exclusively to citizens nor exclusively within our borders. Wherever America goes, the Constitution follows.

Ours was the nation that defined specifically waterboarding as torture to be banned by the Geneva Convention, we proposed that their were to be no exceptions under the law for this method of interrogation to be lawful sanction. This nation once stood against the tactics of the communists who oppress freedom of opinion with fear and propaganda. When politically expedient such a review of history is rejected for the failed logic of ’enhanced interrogation’ being successful and vital to national security. All available credible information on the matter says otherwise and the FBI has warned of a ’blow-back factor’ from using such tactics from the beginning.

Not only do tactics like waterboarding endanger national security but they degrade our ability to conduct ourselves as a credible nation to other nations whom engage in human rights violations and nuclear proliferation. We have no weight in our stance while we allow illegalities to go unpunished within our own government and our own military.

Now somehow in these dark days we have a portion of the country who believe in using the very tactics of the communists that we rallied against so many years ago in a new battle where following this ideology will undoubtedly lead to yet another terrorist attack on the homeland and further the goals of global terrorism abroad. I contend if we listen to the perspective of former Vice-President Richard Cheney on the matter that we will provoke the national security situation to an irreparable state.

 

Pizzaman versus EricG

I have managed to make a profound impact upon a man with the screen name Pizzaman and before I ever got a chance to project my blather in this posting from Alan Colmes’ Liberaland, he was already name-dropping me. I don’t mind, a name-drop is a name drop and if someone reads my homepage I’m happy, but I would rather people at least comment directly on my blog if they are so invested in me specifically to use me as a reoccurring example. The way I see it if you have something to say to a man you say it to his face or in case of the internet you send him a notification of your comments. I send emails to all the conservative radio jocks and spinsters that I negatively comment on via blog. I also send emails to those that I might praise in one of my blogs. I would call such things being a ‘real person.’ Standing up for what you have to say rather than shouting out items and then fleeing the scene before any person involved in your comments might defend themselves.

I don’t believe in passing solely my opinion in this blog. If someone reads it and decides for themselves a conclusion other than my own, then so be it. I think this “Pizzaman” is so biased that his commentary that the commentary is useless in regards to liberals and ultimately to all politics. These fundamentalist ideologies are destructive. And most importantly they are anti-society.

Decide for yourself:

Kregg Reply:

Alan quotes: Ruth Bader Ginsburg wrote that the white firefighters “understandably attract this court’s sympathy. But they had no vested right to promotion. Nor have other persons received promotions in preference to them.”

K: No one was asking for a ‘vested right to promotion’ but simply a fair chance at one. To throw out the test results because the ‘right’ races didn’t score well denied those who DID score well the opportunity to advance.

 

Pizzaman Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 3:43 pm

Further to Kregg’s comments against Ginsberg:

Since when is required that an applicant for a job have a “vested” right to that job in order to have a valid discrimination claim? If a black and a white are competing for a job, NEITHER has a “VESTED” right to the job, but EACH has a valid discrimination claim IF the job is denied on grounds of race. What’s so hard abouit THAT? Why does it it take a genius to figure this out. Why can the conservative majority of the Supreme Court see this, but Ginsberg and her liberal colleagues not? Hmmmmm? Answer: Blinding, pathetic white guilt. EricG — care to respond? Did YOU ever violate God’s law against racial discrimination? I didn’t. And if not, why hold us BOTH accountable?

pizzaman

 

Do I violate God’ Law about … racial discrimination?

I know no such specific part of God’s Law. It’s against hate, not specifically ethnic hate but all hate.

Like right now I hate you. I hate you because you keep bringing me up in the course of making your points and I have never done such a thing to another internet user in all my life.

Maybe I should start. Using people on the internet as examples of racism and bigotry and hate for liberals. Why not?

We all violate the law against hate. We are human after all. But we must fight this within ourselves.

Just as a person who feels ’superior’ to others due to race should fight this urge within themselves to view themselves as superior.

Kind of like … the way how you view yourself as superior to liberals. Is that racism? Think about it. It’s not racism but do you think of liberals as your equal? Intellectually or as a person at least?

I doubt it. That’s why I have no respect for you as a man, your opinions aside.

You’re just one more vile dog out there causing harm to nation with partisanship taken to new heights.

Waste of time all true patriots. Seriously.

Grow up and be an American.

NEWSFLASH LIBERALAND!

Pizzaman is God!!!!

He knows all the transgressions under God’s Eyes because he is God and knows all the secrets of the universe and where exactly he is accountable for everything he ever did.

“And if not, why hold us BOTH accountable?”

We are all accountable. You are accountable before God for how much you hate your fellow Americans called ‘liberals’ and in the same I am held accountable for my hate against Americans called ‘conservatives.’

Next time you want to pick a internet fight with someone you might want to pick someone who is timid and will back off. You’ll be much happier ramming your nonsense and BS down their throat than you ever will dealing with me.

This is the web. You’re going to be more a coward than you would be to my face and I’m going to be more edgy here than I would be in person.

But in the end it’s best we don’t met. I don’t enjoy people who can’t be civil and respectful. I don’t think much of people like yourself, or rather people who present themselves as you have.

It’s a bunch of hollow ‘look me and my hatred and superior intellect’ while when you look around you don’t find people like myself who are outspoken, surely, but not involved with declaring myself ‘above’ others.

I’m right and you’re wrong. About ____. That’s true.

But I’m no better than you and vice versa.

This is America. Try to act like it. The burden falls to you as well as I. If you won’t do anything but be a partisan against liberals then you are a piece of carp American, same for me and cons.

It’s not a game. So don’t screw around.

 

———-

That exactly right, Alan. She not NOT being nominated to vote with the conservative majority. She SUPPOSED to be nominated for her intellectual ability to bring the CONSTITUTION — with the 14th Amendment, a color-blind, non-racist document, halelluliah! — to bear on hard legal issues. But IN FACT, Obama has nominated her precisely because of her penchant for giving preference to black or brown skin tone. Yes, appoint her . . . because she has the intellectual and legal qualifications, and under law, the President has that raw power. But be aware, and beware, of what Obama has appointed: Raw judicial power. And to hell with the Constitution. See Ricci v. New Haven. Funny, true conservatives who act in good faith usually lose out on the raw power decisions. And you EricG, are thinking, “Yeah, yeah.”

Pizzaman

(Somehow he knows my mind before I‘ve read enough about Ricci v. New Haven to feel informed enough to comment. Very strange.)

————-

Um Cara Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:24 pm

I think he has nominated her because she is an anti civil libertarian, nothing to do w/ ‘preference to black or brown skin tone’.

 

Pizzaman Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:42 pm

You’re naive.

BlissfulConservative Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 1:46 pm

I’ll agree with your first sentence UM, but I think a lot of her decisions would be based on skin color/socioeconomics.

Course that is my opinion.

Pizzaman Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

blissfulconservative:

Stand up! “That is my opinion,” my deeply creviced arse. Sotomayor has made a career out of skin color and national origin. I’m an American who “happens to be” hispanic, and I’m fed up with the condescension. “La Raza” = “the race.” This is a collective admission of special need. Well, I don’t need — and I emphatically REJECT — any benefits conferred because of liberal white guilt. “This isn’t about you,” you Anglo, EricG–style liberals. And it’s not about you either, brown skinned hispanics or blacks. It’s about what WE are as a people, and about our founding, our BINDING documents. Get that? “BINDING,” in more sense than one. WE, as one, are BOUND by this document. Want to reject it? Fine, then go fight the civil war all over again.

pizzaman

(I‘m ‘Anglo-style’ now. I feel judged based on the color of my skin!)

OK. As of 4:37 p.m., on 6/29/09, the uncontested fact is that a firefighter (aka “fireman”) was denied a promotion simply because he outscored all minority competitors: black, hispanic, Asian, Venusian, Venetian, Malthusian, and Carpathian. The 14th Amendment says: “No State shall . . . . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws [on ground of race].” Why does the conservative majority have to engage in a death struggle to uphold this premise, which follows so naturally from the eralier premise that :We hold these truths to be self-evident . . .”? Is it that we no longer believe in “self-evident” truths? Or a Creator? God help us if that’s the case. What saved Jews under Hitler? Raw American power? Or adherence to the idea that, under God’s Natural Law, we are equal? EricG: Would you contend that we are ignorant regarding God’s wish concerning Jews in concentration camps? Or the tortured in Darfur? Has false pride so fogged your internal compass that drops of condensation obscure your needle? Think straight. God gave you a mind. I don’t mean to pick on EricG or be mean to him, but he has set himself up as the enemy of natural reason, which flows from God. If not from God,then from EricG and the like-minded who deny all constants, except those like “don’t racially discriminate” or “don’t screw the planet.” But even in asserting these constants, EricG (aka modern liberal man) acknowledges a source of authority and truth greater than himself. Who might this be?

pizzaman

EricG Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 5:16 pm

I see my name in there a lot.

You care to label yourself while your labeling me?

Are you a conservative? Are you a Christian?

How about an American?

Are you now, or have you ever associated with a communist?
“don’t mean to pick on EricG or be mean to him, but he has set himself up as the enemy of natural reason, which flows from God”

Well, your ‘good Christian’ self did just that and you will need to face up for what you’ve done.

The fact remains that we have freedom of religion in this country so whatever insane fundamentalism you are fitting yourself up for … you can’t touch me.

So chew on that for awhile. I have my views on God and Christ and you have yours and in the end you can’t tell me what to think or cause me any harm or stop me from spreading the TRUTH OF JESUS CHRIST in the face of your vicious lies designed to keep people in chains of misery and hate.

“EricG: Would you contend that we are ignorant regarding God’s wish concerning Jews in concentration camps?”

We didn’t go to war over the Jews in WWII.

I don’t see your point, at all. If we could know for certain exactly what “God’s wish” was at any given moment our lives would be infinitely easier.

If you want to accept all the words of the KJB as truth and solid then that’s your failing and not mine. You go right ahead worshiping Constantine and his apprentice.

“Think straight. God gave you a mind”

That’s not the problem. The problem is hate-monger and disgraces to humanity like yourself choose to promote idiocy and bigotry when others seek to fill the world with Christ’s love.

Glad to know you’re fighting me on this one.

Good to know I have people in my court.

“If not from God, then from EricG and the like-minded who deny all constant”

You are angering me by putting words in my mouth that I never said. Would you try not to lie so much about me? Please? It’s a simple request.

I never ‘denied all constants,’ show me where I did this.

Death is a constant. We all die. Time, gravity, etc.

I am trying not to degrade into name-calling and bitter comments but I’m not seeing a lot of Christian in anything you are saying. In fact I don’t even see any of God’s love in this very human posting of very biased views against me personally and liberals in general.

“acknowledges a source of authority and truth greater than himself. Who might this be?”

It’s God. It’s not my business to tell everyone else all the things of the world and everything I understand to be true. Supposedly we are supposed to learn things on our own without hand holding all the way through.

You all those who would attack someone for sharing a perspective on God other than fundamentalism are the ones who are ENEMIES OF REASON. The destroyers of Christ’s love in the streets and the followers of the hate-preachers who spread intolerance of gays and promote an end to religious freedom in the US.

Admit it. You hate this nation.

If it were another country you would never have to hear anything but the secularism of the state or the approved religion which sits just fine with you.

When you have to hear anything but your perfectly ARCANE and equally INSANE orthodoxy then you have to call some a ‘enemy of reason’ and ‘pick on them’ because it threatens everything you do to have people … question the idiocy of religion.

And yet pull away the greatest lessons. Thus making all the hate and BS you all drown yourselves in become nothing but a hollow shell which serves no purpose except to draw blood and feed Satan.

I will resist the swearing, and simply say:

Next time you want to pick on me come to my blog and say it to my face you coward.

Pizzaman = fascist pig

 –

Pizzaman = fascist pig

What Eric, no race card to follow.

– 

He is picking me out of the crowd and I can’t figure out why…

I retract that statement. I was pissed when typing that.

Are you going to retract some BS you posted?

Didn’t think so.

Typical conservative partisan-house unamerican bull from you guys … all day long.

 

Goliath Reply:
June 29th, 2009 at 5:48 pm

EricG

Take your meds please.. you’re really losing grasp on reality

 –

Whatever, you’re one more partisan loser who never once shown any respect to this nation or the liberals of the world.

You deserve all the anger and then some.

And all you conservatives are the ones losing your grip on reality.

I seem to remember debating if the recession even happened and if Bush was ever president or somethig like that the other day on here.

If anyone in America is living in a bubble of lies and falsehoods it would be the conservatives of America.

I shouldn’t care, that’s what my friends say.

they say you guys are fools who will never learn to be anything but fools.

I think more of you. But you don’t make it easy with the way you all treat me.

makes me think maybe I was wrong. Maybe you are all communist scum who deserve a bullet like some of my friends think…

 

wooo Eric, its not good to get that upset. Nothing personal here, but maybe you should stop listing to your friends talking about bullets.

They don’t believe in Christ or any of this side of my ‘bipartisan attempts’ so I can see where they are coming from, I guess.

But it’s insane. I’m the worst. I’ll be the first to say it. But I also see nothing to start with on the conservative side. No place I go send someone to hear a non-BS conservative perspective in politics.

People don’t believe something until they see it. If all you allow yourself to see is race and politics and religion you are missing the bigger picture.

But it’s all my opinion in the end. So I can state myself minus the name-calling and partisanship but who on the right will join me?

It’s a two-way street. When the other guy throws punches it’s hard to get anything done, it’s really that simple.

(There it is. Bickering about politics and my usual cry for sanity.)

R.I.P. Michael Jackson

1.michael_jackson_7

The King of Pop has passed away at the age of fifty. My condolences to the Jackson family in this time of grief. The hearts of the nation, of the entire world, mourn with you in this time of tragedy.

The man has left us, but The Legend will never die. He lives on in his fans across the world and across all cultures. His spirit lives with his vast contribution to popular music and music at large. He will be forever missed.

Read Some News & Instantly Talk About It!

1.uk-internet-blog-traffic-reaches-all-time-high-chart_1 7-Habits-InternetIn my opinion, all these news-blogging websites are the same thing wrapped up in a different package. This age of faster and faster news-cycles combining with worldwide communications expanding to new heights has spawned a new phenomena of people like myself feeling the need to respond to every single news story in all the world.

Then expound upon some line of thought in some blog and someone comments-back: “Keep it short and sweet.” Sometimes there is none of that. Sometimes I run out anything and we end up with the new and famous and amazing micro-blogging (Tweet)!

The FOX Nation

The ‘protectors’ of the freedom of speech and ’balanced’ media have opened up a talking-back-at-you website. They let my liberal stuff through just like anyone else.

Huffington Post

This site has morphed from comment moderation taken to new tyrannical heights and has landed right back where all the internet is, sanity. Though I’ll the first to admit that almost every post on the website is written by a liberal.

The Guardian

I don’t live in the UK but this news-site has always caught my eye. I just think they have better articles than a lot of American media to discuss or reference.

Your Blog

I might have promoted you and you never knew it. I try and point out anything I think is great in both credible source and just pure internet source. If you have a blog I am the one who just randomly spread it around on Facebook or maybe Stumble.

YouTube Threads

I have no idea why people do this but YouTube comment threads often become beyond the limits of sanity in terms of length, and the dialogue goes beyond any measure of civility in about 90% of the cases. I can barely ever help myself, I’ve allowed myself to childish and tawdry while speaking to vile and hostile people. If you like car-crashes and Jerry Springer … you might want to just read the comments under a video without even bothering with whatever the original post was.

It’s just my point of view.

That it all fits in the same pale. One big not-so happy family of internet traffic.

The only credibility on most internet posting is attached to the credibility of the domain combined with the author. I’ll listen to anybody, but I’m not about to try and attach any level of credibility to myself. This all just my opinion. But I think some certain few out there somehow manage to get opinion and real news confused in all the commotion of the New Media.

You Only Have Three Choices

There are endless possibilities within contemplation and creative expression. An infinite number of ways to view, reflect, express and ponder.

But as to the confines of reacting to our environment there seem to be only three options. Only three choices.

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

{+ Positive +  ( = Neutral = )  – Negative -}

{+ Creation +  ( = Equilibrium = )  – Destruction -}

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Let’s use an every-day example:

You wanted to go on a bike ride today. Unpredicted heavy rains have come to your area and are not expected to leave for several days.

In a positive outlook, this is a chance to catch up on reading, housework or perhaps to spend time with friends and family.

In a neutral outlook, this rain has no effect on your day and you may go ride your bike anyway or you may stay indoors due to the rain and both events are equally desirable to you.

In a negative outlook, this rain has ruined your day and no matter what activity you engage in you will resent deeply that fact that you are not riding your bike.

The ‘bike riding’ example is more or less what we most often from motivational speakers and self-help books. The concept that if you change your outlook on life you can attain happiness in your life now, instead of waiting for the perfect job or the perfect mate to fill that hole.

I don’t fully subscribe to this logic. I see all people as first and foremost human beings. And human beings have all three of these reactionary options available to them no matter what choices they have made prior to this moment in time.

I don’t condone negative and destructive behaviors, but I see them entirely human acts to commit.

I don’t condone utter apathy and ignorance of your emotions, but I know most have strong and often private reasons for behaving as such.

And finally I don’t support viewing all the world and your part in it as purely positive and affirming. We must strive for such a goal, must reach toward such heights without pause or question. But to believe we are not flawed nor perfectly capable of destruction and causing pain unto others is a flawed perspective.

I see a lot of people using different words to describe the same thing.

I say positive and negative, someone else says ‘evil’ and ‘good.’

I say creation and destruction, someone else says ‘angels’ and ‘demons.’

In my mind it is all the same elements expressed in different fashions. Humans trying to paint a picture using symbols but failing to recognize the source of these ‘evils.’

We are the source. We drew the line in the sand that says what is ‘right’ and what is ‘wrong.’ Whatever religious beliefs a person might have there is a serious need to recognize that negative elements in all societies such as greed, hatred, violence and slander are acts committed by human beings.

My perspective allows no one to excuse their unkind and hostile behavior as acceptable in any way. I only seek to point out that all of us work within the same confines of human emotion and human irrationality. Rather than try to define our species as something it is not and never was, a perfect race.

Bill O’Reilly versus Joan Walsh

YouTube Video of The Debate

“This Tiller thing is bogus. And I think you know it‘s bogus. And if not I‘m gonna show you a sound byte that‘s gonna prove it to you.”

How many sound bytes do you have to show people to fix what they read in textbooks and newspapers?

If it’s in the Constitution, he has a sound byte for that. No need to read it yourself.

If it’s the truth of ideology that he claims to hold and only perverts and twists to his own ends, he has a sound byte for that. No need to speak to the people involved.

If he promotes domestic terrorism via lies about Americans and invasions of privacy in his ‘just crusade,’ he has a sound byte for that. No need to look at reality.

He has a sound byte ready for the day he starts getting right down to it and promoting violence against liberals and terrorism on the city of San Francisco. And another one ready as they fit him for an orange jumpsuit.

All of it to carefully explain away why he is not at fault, ever, and has nothing to do with anything except the so-called ‘truth.’ All it to make sure nobody in his audience ever actually reads anything except what he tells them to.

To me, this is proof of what I’ve always said about Bill O’Reilly:

This man cares nothing for facts and only for own personal set of biases.

 

The O’Reilly Tactic of Dirty Pool Debate revealed one of his trademark spin artist moves in the opening moments of this clip.

Bill’O brings up as a side-line, and states himself very quickly, in mentioning what Joan wrote on her website was “unconscionable” and then says he is going to “stick to it” by addressing the matter at hand.

This is classic Dirty Pool Debate. You slander your opponent and before they get a chance to respond then quickly you move to the ’real issue at hand.’ The whole point of Dirty Pool Debate is to demean the character of your opponent instead of argue the point with them.

Bill O’Reilly is a master at doing just this. Keeping the truth of a real debate away from his audience and helping them maintain narrow-minded thinking while feeling like they are ‘learning’ about politics, media and the nation.

Just screaming like an idiot into the camera and refusing the recognize the damage he does to society at large with this brand of partisan hate and untruthful propaganda on serious social issues in America.

Joan: “You crusaded against him.”

Bill: “You bet!”

Joan: “He had been shot twice already.”

Bill: “And I‘m sorry about that.”

Well if he was so sorry why didn’t he stop slandering and misusing his platform to spread lies about Americans that ultimately lead to domestic terrorism incidents?

Because that would have hurt his ratings. Oh, the precious ratings.

He should be sorry. He is the one with blood on his hands, after all.

What Bill O’Reilly does on television is wrong. It is a brutal set of lies and conjecture that provides no benefit to the nation whatsoever. FOX Broadcasting Studios should be ashamed to have their name attached to such a disreputable and dishonest man.

 

The need to scream over all that disagrees with your mentality is a clear example of partisanship and intolerance for the opinions of others.

The need to call everyone not aligned with you as “far left“is a clear example of a need to marginalize your opponent because you feel your own position is weak or lacking against theirs.

Considering conservatives are on the wrong side of history in every debate over social issues I can see why Bill O’Reilly is so threatened to use such shallow and childish tactics.

Joan is absolutely right about Bill O’Reilly being a vile man. A vile and lowly man who loves his ideologies more than he loves other humans.

He disrespects the nation and the intelligence of his audience with his so-called ‘facts’ and his so-called ‘reporting.’

Time and time again it is the true patriots who must stand up against the charlatans and propagandists who seek to destroy this nation in violence and ignorance.

Let our voices be heard, loud.

A domestic terrorist is in our amidst: Bill O’Reilly. A man who promotes vigilantism and misinformation that gets Americans killed.

Iran Explodes with Unrest

Huffington Post has the latest updates on the Iranian situation.

I would draw your attention to the final video on the post: “12:17 AM ET — Awe-inspiring courage.”

Panetta versus Cheney

leon_panetta_informal_photo

CIA Director Leon Panetta is quoted as saying in regards to the recent Cheney media appearances:

“It’s almost, a little bit, gallows politics. When you read behind it, it’s almost as if he’s wishing this country would be attacked again, in order to make his point. I think that’s dangerous politics.”

dick-cheney

Former Vice-President Dick Cheney has responded by saying he hopes Panetta was misquoted in claiming his wish for an attack.

Panetta is absolutely right. The shameful, hawkish media-tour to promote torture policy and degrade the Obama presidency should be met with even more harsh words than these of Panetta’s. But they will do for the time being.