My Neighbor Bill O'Reilly

I genuinely feel bad for people who heed this *din*:



I myself wouldn't say the mosque was *inappropriate*.

I'd assert that the plans to build it there were a clear and deliberate *middle finger* - and THAT is why people might/should oppose it.

And I do wonder if Barbara Walters has ever thought about what being on that show is doing to her journalistic image - to her *legacy*...

Yeah, he does live down the street, about 1.5 miles away.

Bill is really getting old, no?

'Open Season' On Morons - I Guess I Have To Hunt

First, watch this video:



Apparently Bill O'Reilly is *for the bailout* and isn't tolerant of rich guys on "right wing conservative talk radio" who dare stand against it. According to him they are "Kool-Aid drinking idiots", "liars", "right wing liars", and "they're not looking out for you".

Okay.

Then Mark Levin comes on and fires back, "Moron", "you jerk", "you paid more in hush money for your little phone sex than I've ever earned.", "the Non-Factor who doesn't know crapola about economics, history, or law", "another mainstream Moron phony journalist", and "jealous like hell of Rush Limbaugh".

Levin's final shots: "Your ratings suck" and "you'll be gone soon".

Okay, he can bust on the guy's radio ratings, but c'mon, Bill O'Reilly has knocked the cover off the ball on television.

Anyway, I wanted to point out what's really going on here. Yeah, Bill O'Reilly may genuinely think his opinion on the *bailout* is unimpeachable gospel; and there may be more than a little bit of professional jealousy.



BUT, anyone who's ever studied Bill's tack would know that he considers himself, or markets himself a populist - a basher of the elites on *both sides*. Frankly, I can't stand this dichotomized construct but admit that is does have a rough basis in fact - if only because so few people today can think for themselves that everyone has decided to self-pigeonhole. For years Bill has been exposing so-called left wing loons on his show: would-be marijuana legalizers, San Francisco inverts, *restorative justice* advocates, etc. But he's always strained to find marketable wackos from the other *constructed* pole. Usually he's been reduced to bringing in some obscure Protestant clergymen; or non-orthodox Catholic priests in favor of Amnesty for illegal immigrants; and making very much ado about them. The fact is, in this country, 90% of the clowns are on one side; and that's because that side dominates our culture: the media, the courts, government, education, etc. These *LLL* Morons are allowed to act out with absolute impunity; heck they're encouraged.

In other periods of history - say when a hidebound Catholic Church reigned supreme - the polar balance of wackos was completely reversed. It is simply empirical history that:

Cuius regio ejus religio - "whose region, his or her religion" or "the religion of the ruled must be that of the ruler."

Bill HAS to blow up at *right wingers* on any particular issue he can in order to keep (transparently) chiseling his image as a moderate, as an independent. This is his MO and he's sticking to it!

Now, to speak more generally on this *bailout* that everyone and their mother has a fanatical opinion of:



A friend of mine yesterday tried to frame his *pro bailout* perspective thusly - he said that "when the extreme right and the extreme left are against it....you know it's the correct, practical thing to do."

"Okay," I said conceding that specious premise, "but will it in fact 'work'??? Will it stimulate the economy in any meaningful, sustainable fashion???"

Of course it won't. The government has already spent $700 billion to date on ailing financial institutions and various real estate bubble-exposed entities. Home prices have kept dropping and will continue to do so for another 20%-30% - until they equalize with personal incomes. Look at that chart again from my recent post - and the other one where I put the bailout cost of higher gasoline alone at $109.5 billion already.



Now again, I don't care for the puerile dichotomized framing of issues; and I haven't done any real research on which *categories* of people voted for or against the DOA *bailout*. BUT, I will say this:

If it's the diehard communists and the diehard libertarians who voted against a taxpayer funded extension of this Ponzi scheme, I have to say, IMNSHO, they are both correct and true to their ideologies.

This bailout is a complete boondoggle, a complete *bailout* of Wall Street, of wealthy investors, and of foreign governments. Any clear-headed, consistent socialist could see that. Hardly a soul on Wall Street has had to return a bonus or been charged with a crime. Not a single official from the SEC or from government has had to resign or admit blame. Apparently this tide of bankruptcies following a tremendous (if fleeting) boom is absolutely no one's fault - at least in the quadrants of finance and a government (which seems perpetually staffed by Goldman Sachs partners). If it weren't for bogeymen, there'd be hardly a soul to blame. Heck, Fannie Mae's head crooks are paid advisers to the frontrunning presidential candidate!

Furthermore, there is no way that anyone with a bona fide understanding of and appreciation for the free exchange of goods and services could ever endorse the overnight nationalization of the banking industry (and housing, and insurance). This *bailout* is the culmination of decades of statist economic meddling, of voter apathy, and the nationwide epidemic of econo-illiteracy. Even supposed capitalists like Steve Forbes and Don Luskin have forsaken their principles for the fantasy of hope; for the pipe dream that even though government can't teach kids to read, manage the retirement money of Americans, efficiently build roads, deliver universal healthcare, enforce the law, protect us from terrorists and hurricanes...that this fumbling entity can indefinitely suspend *prices* above *economic value*. You see, as the air departs this credit bubble, reality is torturing the souls of perma-optimsts and paper-wealth tigers. The fact that extremely wealthy people losing a mere 15% of their net-worth are going ape-sh*t is a frank admission of ignorance and impiety; it's proof they have an unhealthy, idolatrous lust for a currency *they can't take with them*.

True believers in free-market capitalism would be relishing this *buying opportunity*; they'd be celebrating the pruning of weak industry; and would be unshakably confident in the economy's ability innovate and regenerate its way back to prosperity.

But no. People with soft assets - real estate (YES), stocks, and bonds - are petrified because deep-down inside (since apparently not upstairs) they know they've built their livelihood upon a house of cards,

THEY'VE TAKEN AN ADJUSTABLE MORTGAGE ON IT,
AND ALL OF A SUDDEN THEIR BONUS AND THEIR WAGE SLAVE PAY ISN'T SO SECURE...

The idea that a bunch of bought-and-sold, ignorant lawyers in Washington can wave a wand and convert popular self-delusion into reality, well...

In that case the *bailout* bill may as well commence:



Devil's Advocate - You just want the market to tank and the bailout to fail so you can profit from your shorts and perhaps scoop up a house on the cheap...You're as biased as anyone.

Wrong. I made my bets AFTER assessing the future. The others placed theirs BEFOREHAND. Go read my last 700 or so posts!

By the way, I'll NEVER buy a house - if I can. I would say that based on the flux in my wife's firm, there's at least a 20% chance now we'll have to move, AGAIN, back to the NYC/NJ area. Notwithstanding the six month winter I happen to really like this oasis of Boston's South Shore. Regardless, I've grown too BIG to ever be defined or confined by geography.

Sorry to have condescended to *politics*; but I was taking heat from Taylor for too much "social commentary". This anti-social post was for him.

The Un-Datable Tonya Reiman

If you don't know her by now, this is Tony Reiman a noted body language expert who now makes regular appearances on The O'Reilly Factor. Here's an old clip that I uploaded of her last year.



Her analyses really are amazing but the important question remains,

Would any man in his right mind date or marry this woman?

Tonya - I can tell from your kissing angle that you don't really love me.

Tonya - Your blink rate just elevated to seventy per minute...so you really think it's my turn to do the dishes?

Tonya - When Betsy came into the room you pursed your lower lip and swallowed...now I know you have been fantasizing about her!

From my semi-old guy perspective, she's not a bad looking woman, but really, who would ever want to deal with such a seer? I'd be turning the lights off and moving out of sight before ever answering a question from her. Heck, guys have major problems with undiscerning bimbettes who merely ask, "Does this dress make me look fat?"

So clearly, Tonya's profession makes her un-datable - a trait that she shares with the much more beautiful Kirsten Powers (also a frequent O'Reilly guest).



Don't think she's attractive? There are plenty of clips of her on YouTube.

Just make sure you have the volume muted when trying to make a fair assessment.

Drudge Report Links To CaptiousNut

Matt Drudge just linked directly to one of the videos I posted on YouTube.

There it is, at the bottom, titled "FLASHBACK..."

Democrats, United on Terrorism - John Edwards

I saw that Michelle Malkin had it up earlier and I was patting myself on the back. Then about 5 minutes ago I saw the link on Drudge and was almost blown away.

A few months ago when I saw the clip on O'Reilly I knew it was gold (of course, so did Bill).

A genius isn't someone who has great ideas insomuch as it is someone who quickly recognizes them.

So that makes Matt Drudge a genius, right?

Bill O'Reilly versus Geraldo

Watch, this clip. I thought they were going to come to blows.

(The background is the death of two teenage girls in Virginia Beach. They were killed by a repeat drunk driver who just happened to be "undocumented".)



One blurb,

Geraldo - Illegal aliens commit crimes at a lower rate than citizens do...

Really?

I guess he doesn't consider jumping the border, overstaying a visa, or identity theft to be "crimes".

Geraldo, you actually said "illegal aliens" don't commit crime. That would be like saying "Fat people aren't overweight".

Barney Frank-ly Is A Dissembling Socialist

On November 29th, Congressmen Barney Frank (S - Massachusetts) appeared on the O'Reilly Factor. Frank is no political lightweight; he'll chair the House Financial Services Committee when the Democrats take control of Congress in January.

Definitely watch the video first. I've transcribed the important exchange below - though it's a thoroughly inadequate substitute for the viewing experience.

BillO - Do you believe in income redistribution?

BF - To some extent the whole country does...George Bush supports a tax structure in which people at the upper end get taxes much more than people at the lower end. It's called progressive taxation. But that's not what I've been talking about mostly now. The problem we have now is not that the government isn't doing enough to redistribute to the lower end but that the government is doing too much to redistribute it to the higher end.

BillO - Do you believe in it or not?

BF - Stop being a silly would-be district attorney...Bill if you want to do that go to law school. The fact is I told you I do like George Bush does.

BillO - You're not like George Bush. That's ridiculous.

BF - Bill, will you please stop interrupting?

BillO - When you say something dopey, I am going to point it out.

BF - I came on the show to have a coherent conversation...

BillO - And I asked you a question and...

BF - And as I try to answer it you keep interrupting. It's your style when you don't like the answer...

BillO - It's YOUR STYLE to make an invalid comparison between you and George Bush....That's bull.

BF - I said that I agree with George Bush that people at the upper end of the income scale should be taxed more than people at the lower end.

BillO - That's not income redistribution.
.
.
..
BillO - What's the top tax rate? What should it be?

BF - I think when Bill Clinton had it at 39%, we had a very good economy. But that of course is only part of the problem because you are trying to ignore the issue that public policies today are in fact (effect?) going in the reverse direction and what we've seen is more and more of the wealth that we've created in this society is staying in the hands of very few people and I would like to see public policies that distribute the wealth more fairly. I'm not talking about taking from the rich and giving to the working classes or poor. I am talking about a fairer share of the increased wealth because as Alan Greenspan said a couple of years ago, it's all going recently to a handful of people. I am talking about just sharing the increase instead of redistributing.

BillO - 39%, you think is a fair top rate.

BF - Yeah, I said that.

CaptiousNut - Actually BF, no you didn't say that. You blurted out some vague connection to the internet bubble and a 39% tax rate.

Boy would I have loved to have been there asking my socialist Congressman questions. Bill did a decent job (compared to his peers in the news business) but it's nothing like to what I would have laid on the slimy stammerer. Of course, Bill can't "drill" Barney too hard or he'll never come back on the show. I predict it will be a while before Barney appears again given his embarrassing performance.

Now is Frank a liar or a complete Moron?

What I mean is, does he truly believe in confiscating money from the working rich and handing it to the non-working, morally-challenged poor and just doesn't want to admit to it?

Or he is so thoroughly stupid that he really thinks he answered the darn question?

Hey Barney do you believe in X?

Well, to some extent the whole country does....

What???????

He mocks Bill as a "would-be district attorney" but there isn't a judge in the land that would permit such outright evasion. Your honor, will you please direct the witness to answer the question?

Now how many lies can Barney cram into his non-answer?

The whole country supports progressive taxation?

First of all, I don't support it. Libertarians are likely all against it. Steve Forbes has been advocating a flat-tax for many years and ran for President on that platform in 1996. Not to mention most especially that HIGH INCOME EARNERS DON'T SUPPORT the disproportionate confiscation of their wages.

George Bush supports progressive taxation?

Why? Because he didn't veto every Congressional bill not including a flat-tax? Therefore he believes in progressive taxation?

The same exact day Frank uttered these falsehoods (again while evading a direct question), wire reports were buzzing about George Bush touting Estonia's economic growth and FLAT TAX.

Of all the days in the last six years to misrepresent lie about President Bush's tax philosophy, could Frank have picked a more untimely one?

Too bad Bill didn't have a Captious voice in his hear on this point...

I just had a flashback to Al Gore hyperventilating about global warming in NYC on one of its coldest days on record.

How can Frank say with a straight face that Bush agrees with him on progressive taxation?

Bush lowered the top tax bracket from 39 percent to 35 percent.

AND

Bush also cut taxes on the low end.



Flattening out the tax code at its highest point seems a most peculiar expression of support for progressive taxation.

Then again, answering a question about your personal beliefs with "the whole country believes in..." also confounds most holders of 3-digit IQs.

President Bush also wants to abolish the estate tax which is arguably its most progressive confiscation. Frank and his comrades are not exactly on board with that one.

Let's pause the litany of lies for a second.

Frank's response (re: income redistribution) may span the gamut of pejorative adjectives, but that's not to say there's no logic to his tack. Let me try to illustrate this obliquely.

Often times when Senator John Kerry is interrogated about some policy or gaffe of his, he starts his response some variation of, "We have to do better..." or "I have to do better..."

When any Congressmen admits his and his cohorts' incompetence, the listener will reflexively fall into initial agreement. After that, it's much easier for a John Kerry to evade a question, peddle BS, and unleash more sophisticated propaganda. A few sentences into Kerry's response-turned-monologue, and the audience of Soundbite Nation won't even remember the initial question; at least that's what he's striving for. Worst of all, John Kerry won't seem like such a detestable figure.

I want to give another example before I tie to all together.

Remember a dissembling Greg Mankiw hid behind Alan Greenspan in his call for higher gasoline taxes,

National security. Alan Greenspan called for higher gas taxes recently. "It's a national security issue," he said. It is hard to judge how much high oil consumption drives U.S. involvement in Middle Eastern politics. But Mr. Greenspan may well be right that the gas tax is an economic policy with positive spillovers to foreign affairs.

My comment was:

A Greenspan quote? Is that supposed to bring gravitas? Here's what this is. Greg wanted to trot out his own personal conspiracy theory of oil consumption subsidizing "Middle Eastern politics" - whatever the heck that nebulous animal is. BUT, he lacked the stones to say it himself and opted to mask his tripe in a quote from Yoda.


Barney Frank's use of "the whole country" and "George Bush" is a very LOGICAL DEFLECTION - not fundamentally different than the examples given of John Kerry or Greg Mankiw. In this case, Frank wields President Bush as the Useful Stereotype to burnish his own image.

Bill O'Reilly essentially called Frank a socialist, and graciously gave him a chance to disavow it. Frank then tried to sell himself as mainstream, cut from the same mold as the most powerful and visible capitalist of all - George Bush. All the while Frank indulged in FALSE COMPARISON and demonstrated an infinitely flexible relationship with the truth.

...I would like to see public policies that distribute the wealth more fairly. I'm not talking about taking from the rich and giving to the working classes or poor.

Wow, a fairer distribution of wealth that doesn't involve taking it from those who have it????????

...I am talking about just sharing the increase instead of redistributing.

How can sharing possibly not be considered redistribution?????????

The problem we have now is not that the government isn't doing enough to redistribute to the lower end but that the government is doing too much to redistribute it to the higher end.

The only thing he can be talking about here is the "tax cuts for the rich". When his ostensible co-ideologue George Bush dropped the top income tax rate from 39% to 35% - that is called "redistribution". Huh?

Letting people keep 4% more of the money they earned is a government "redistribution"?

If a guy walks by me and I don't mug him for his wallet, did I then "redistribute" his cash to him?

The problem we have now is not that the government isn't doing enough to redistribute to the lower end...

WHO THE HECK SAID THAT WAS "THE PROBLEM" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Can you say straw man?



You can't even say that Frank "bobs and weaves" - at least in the context of tax redistribution. The bell rang, he ran out of the ring, stole the announcer's microphone, and started fulminating from the rafters.

Distortion, deflection, mythological metaphor, vituperation, and outright propaganda all by a man "who came on the show to have a coherent conversation".

Note that Greg Mankiw is proud of his Congressman Barney Frank.

Frank was recently re-elected in the gerrymandered 4th District of Massachusetts. He ran unopposed.

If you can't or didn't watch the YouTube clip at the top, make sure you find the time to do so; it's highly illuminating.