A Challenge for Right-Wing Bloggers

Several Bushist blogger types have written to assert that there are as many violent and threatening remarks and insults coming from liberals online as there are from conservatives against liberals. I’ve spent many sadly-lost hours online, and I say: no way.

So here’s my challenge: Please email your worst, most vicious examples of liberal/leftie blogger vitriol (with links, natch), and I’ll post ’em right here. If they exist, obviously.

If not, let’s take as a given what we already know: that Republicans’ first impulse is to punch people whose arguments they can’t defeat with logic and to bomb countries whose people know something we don’t.

Come on, righties: my server is standing by at: rightwingchallenge@rall.com. Challenge ends Monday.

Time for Liberals to Stand Up For Themselves

For far too long patriotic American liberals have been turning the other cheek while conservative assholes beat the crap out of them. The latest example: the same scum who brought us the Swift Boat ads about John Kerry are trying to defeat the powerful AARP by calling them proponents of gay marriage and opponents of support for our troops in combat. Now, I never thought I’d find myself agreeing with the AARP on anything. But they’re right to oppose Bush’s plan to dismantle Social Security; the more I hear the details, the more outrageous it sounds. Of course the AARP, being a lobbying organization for senior citizens, doesn’t have any opinion about gay marriage, either pro or con. But that doesn’t stop the connies, and the ads still run. Meanwhile, mainstream Democrats write polite letters to the editor.

Which brings me to David Horowitz.

Readers of the already know that this GOP-approved loon has targeted everyone from Barbra Streisand to Dan Rather as “left” and listed alongside the 9/11 hijackers and other Islamist extremists in a sordid attempt to infer a relationship between the two groups of people. You can find this online delicacy, which obviously took some work, at Discover the Network.

The very notion of this website, which reads a lot like those anti-abortion websites that listed abortion doctors whom the groups wanted to see assassinated, ought to be illegal. But the Supreme Court ruled about those sites a few years back, and found them covered by the First Amendment. The other thing that ought to be illegal is Horowitz’s stupidity. I mean, the dude lists the personalities on the first page in alphabetical order…by first name. And he lists Sean Penn, one of the world’s most photographed movie stars, with a blurry photo. Surely even a neocon torture supporter like Horowitz ought to be able to find a better picture than that.

The problem is, he’s unwilling to pay for his photos. So, in a patent violation of U.S. Copyright law, he swipes them from copyrighted sources…like other people’s website. Like mine–the photo under my listing was paid for at significant expense, and copyrighted. Horowitz neither requested, nor would have received, permission to reproduce my photo.

It so happens that I take intellectual property rights seriously. Without them, after all, I wouldn’t make a living. So I’ve fired off the following “cease and desist” letter to David Horowitz, owner of Discover the Network:

To: david@cspc.org
Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2005 7:44 PM
Subject: URGENT: Cease and Desist Notice
Dear Mr. Horowitz:
 It has come to my attention that you have, without obtaining written or other permission, posted a publicity photograph of myself, apparently copied from my website, to your site Discover the Network (http://www.discoverthenetwork.org). This photograph is copyrighted material. Your act violates U.S. Copyright Law, which provides for damages up to $150,000 plus attorney’s fees.
I therefore request that you take the following actions on or before 5 p.m. Eastern Standard Time on Friday, February 25, 2005:
1. Remove said photograph from your website.
2. Agree to remit the sum of $5,000.00 as payment for your unauthorized use of said photograph, with such payment via money order to be received within three (3) business days at my address in New York, New York.
3. Sign a notarized stipulation agreeing not to post my copyrighted material in the future.
 Thank you for your prompt attention to this urgent matter.
 Sincerely,
Ted Rall

From Bush and Alberto Gonzeles down to the Abu Ghraib prison guards, the Republican right thumbs its collective noses at the law. Fortunately, Section 504 of U.S. Copyright Law provides for legal remedies against those who steal copyrighted material without permission. The hundreds of other liberals listed at DTN may be content to allow their copyrighted photos to appear on Horowitz’s blacklist, but not me. I’m not putting up with this shit.

Horowitz’s attorney replied as follows (at 2 AM West Coast/5 AM East Coast time…now that’s dedication!):

From: Manuel Klausner
Date: February 24, 2005 2:06:57 AM PST
To: Tedrall@aol.com
Subject: Re: URGENT: Cease and Desist Notice
Dear Mr. Rall,
I represent David Horowitz, and am writing to respond to your email below. I am informed that the “publicity photograph” was not copied from your website, contrary to your surmise. It appears to be in the public domain. If you dispute this, please promptly furnish me with a copy of your copyright registration.
Even if the photo is copyrighted, its use in FrontPageMagazine.com appears to qualify as a fair use. The nature and purpose of the use is news reporting and commentary in an Internet publication for nonprofit educational purposes. The very nature of a “publicity photo” suggests that it is ordinarily intended to be used without obtaining permission in advance. Moreover, it does not appear that the effect of the use would be to decrease the value of the photo, which appears to have been widely circulated in many sources. Accordingly, we believe a court would find this use of the photo to be “fair” under Section 107 of the Copyright Law.
Based on the foregoing reasons, your three requests are hereby rejected. We would be willing to consider any further information you care to provide, including a copy of any copyright registration.
Manuel S. Klausner

I don’t know if or where Manuel Klausner went to law school, but I like to rely on the ever-useful Glamour Models website for legal advice. And Glamour Models (well, actually, an attorney who wrote a piece they posted for fashion photographers) has some interesting advice for Horowitz and other intellectual property thieves.

My photo is certainly NOT in the public domain, and I have vigorously defended its copyright in the past. And Glamour Models has this to say about the silly “Fair Use” argument:

“Fair use” is a legal “defense” to copyright. It was created to allow use of copyright material for socially valuable purposes such as commentary, parody, news reporting, education and the like, without permission of the copyright holder. A typical instance would be a brief quotation from a book as part of a book review. Uses allowed by “Fair Use” are normally a small part of a work and include an author credit and attribution. Fair uses are generally for non-profit purposes. Fair use is rarely allowed where the use competes directly with the work or harms its commercial value. Most fair use situations involve text. It is difficult to imagine any situation involving the Internet where someone copying a photo could claim the fair use defense. In typical infringement activities, such as unauthorized posting to Usenet, stocking websites from Usenet trolling, scanning from Playboy magazine, or simply copying from other websites-the fair use doctrine does not apply.

Hmm. Doesn’t look good for David. Oh, and am I going to provide a copy of my copyright registration to this jerk? Hell, no, because whether or not I have one I still own that copyright as I own the copyright to the contents of my entire website. But he’s welcome to find out, in court, whether or not I have one. One thing he should know, however, is that I don’t bluff.

Horowitz’s Right Wingnuts

Ever since Horowitz wrote about this loverly little exchange on his anti-American hate site FrontPageMagazine.com, I’ve had the joy of hearing from his readers. Here’s a sample of the people who voted for George W. Bush and support the war in Iraq:

From mother@telefonica.net:

So you defend terrorists but you want the protection of the law? PIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGG!
FASCIST!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Evidently this wanker equates standing against torture and preemptive wars based on lies with defending terrorists. What about Bush, who increased the terrorists’ funding (foreign aid to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan) after 9/11? Isn’t that defending terrorists?

From p.leddy@comcast.net:

Whatsa matter , you afraid someone’s gonna take a run at you, you liberal fuck? Oh and tell pseudo-indian ward to fuck HIMSELF also. This is war, asshole. If you did refer to Tillman as an idiot, I’ll piss on your momma’s grave if she’s dead. If she ain’t, I’ll wait till that happens. Kiss my ass. Ain’t the first amendment grand?!

From cramerb@dyc.edu:

Mr. Rall: I find it interesting that you are offended by such an innocuous photo. I don’t suppose it ever occurred to you to think about the millions of people you offend with your repugnant bile. Bruce Cramer, Buffalo, NY

I am not offended by my photo, although it would be nicer if my image looked more like Keanu Reeves’. I am offended, as it were, by the flagrant violation of my copyright. My “repugnant bile”, on the other hand, is protected by the First Amendment. Why is the law such a difficult concept for the right to understand?

From tonyb@hvc.rr.com:

Typical liberal response to seeing your picture posted on Discover The Network. I just loved how David’s lawyer put it to your ass. Be a man and suck it up and take some of what you dish out. Don’t be a ‘girlie man”!! If you stand for nothing you will fall for anything. Tony Bonagura

I have a rule righties might find interesting. When someone I like accidentally does something to harm me, I suck it up. When someone who hates me sets out to attack me by breaking the law, I fight back. But obviously Tony supports Bush, who decided after 9/11 that he was too much of a girlie man to go after the terrorists because he was afraid of them. So instead he attacked too uninvolved, unrelated, but defenseless countries. Typical right-wingers.

From jrdott@pacbell.net:

I didn’t know the truth about you until I read your profile on David Horowitz’ excellent new website! I have email contacts all over California and I’ve sent Mr. Horowitz’ profile on to my address book—I believe it’s critical that people like you are exposed for who you are. I was surprised to see your email to Mr. Horowitz regarding the use of your photograph! As a cartoonist and a person with [supposedly] a sense of humor, I thought at first that your email was a spoof…..perhaps…..a cartoon in words, so to speak? I mean, were you serious??? HA! David Wilson

If and when a joke has been made, I’ll let you know.

And from the next Sartre, jmarks@comcast.net:

Great pic. Always wanted to see what an asshole looks like. The idiot who studifies people with an cartoon that doesn’t even makes sense. This seems to reflect on your left political leanings as well. So your the asshole that believes the Bush Adminstration is wrong for freeing people from tyranny. Tell that to the people and the victims families who have experienced death, rape and murder at the hands of Islamic jihadists and Saddam Hussein and his idiot sons. It is people like you that don’t give a flying fuck about anyone else other than your selfish needs. It is people like that go around thinking that your shit doesn’t stink, whereas the opposite is true. Salute to the ASSHOLE!

“Studifies”? Is that some gay sex thing?

Fortunately, there are people who “get it” out there…unfortunately, they’re almost all Democrats:

From Norman:

I congratulate you on your decision to fight back against the character assination from FPM, Horowitz and his new web toy. I would also suggest that your fellow reporters figure out how Horowitz got
a dot ORG web site. They are for charitable and church organizations not for Political hacks. By the way Horowitz’s lawyers answer in response to your e mail holds no water. This idea that a photo is public domain is crap. If it is am image of you you control where and when that image is used that is black letter law

That’s sure the way the law reads.

Geneva Conventions Follow-Up

An excellent email from Russell:

The argument over uniforms, et al, applies only to the rights of prisoners of war under the 3rd Geneva Convention. I’d agree with Andy that the 3rd does not apply to the insurgents. However, the 4th Geneva Convention, which everyone seems to forget about, would guarantee basic human rights protections to any insurgent who was an Iraqi citizen (it would not apply to foreign fighters). Even if they commit acts against the “Occupying Power”, they are entitled to the due process of law and to the protection of their basic dignity.
I quote a small part of the 4th convention below. Later sections are much more detailed.
–Russell
PART I GENERAL PROVISIONS
…
Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.
Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.

Blogs
Richard says:

Your Luddite pal got it right.
I hope you will keep going on the topic that a preponderance of blogs “work for the bad guys.” I’d put it a wee bit more bluntly – as in blogger expenses and salary are paid by the bad guys. Sure, it costs almost nothing to broadcast one, and yes they are multiplying like fungi, but it’s quite a trick to get them linked to popular web sites and even more importantly into the mainstream media – unless you have money and influence. No exposure, no importance.
Dig deeply enough and I’m sure you’ll find that many, perhaps most, of the politically oriented blogs function like the fictionalized movie critics created by big studios to sell rotten movies. Plant a favorable account, then get it quoted in the mainstream media you either rent, dupe or control outright. Pay the lowly blogger for their time (covertly of course), but mostly pump them up by getting him/her linked and cited. Karl Rove certainly figured this gambit out years ago.
Trust no blog unless you know who pays who pays the bills.

And he says it very, very well.

Geneva Conventions

Andy writes:

Even though I’m a softcore Libertarian who thinks Clinton is the greatest president since James K Polk, I’ve found myself 99% behind you the last few years. Behind enough to buy subversive cartoonists for my Dad even though I’m still debt ridden student.

I don’t know if I agree with Andy about Clinton (or Polk!) but I do miss his economy. Everyone does.

A couple points of disagreement:
1) latest blog entry: The Geneva convention does not apply to the, for lack of a better word, the “terrorists” in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Geneva convention is VERY clear, you MUST WEAR A UNIFORM if you are a soldier. If you do otherwise you are willfully endangering civilians and surrender the rights of a soldier. The Geneva Convention doesn’t say anything about terrorists but it does describe “spies” and I think the current insurgents fit the description to a T. Spies have no rights so technically the Bush admin is within the bounds of international law.

Actually, things aren’t nearly as clear cut. I just finished reading “The Torture Papers: The Road to Abu Ghraib,” a collection of the Taguba Report and the original memoranda generated by Alberto Gonzales, John Yoo and other administration torture aficianados, which address Geneva and the uniform issue. What Geneva actually says is that soldiers are defined as those who wear clear insignia. That doesn’t necessarily mean uniforms. In fact, Taliban militiamen in Afghanistan were distinguished by their black long-tail turbans–which were originally tribal in affiliation but were adapted by the entire Taliban while the non-Taliban tribals took on other garb. U.S. forces tacitly accepted this distinguishing feature by firing at anyone wearing one, even from aerial Predator drones and it was well known in the theater of war.
In Iraq, many of the insurgents are former Iraqi government officers and soldiers and still wear uniforms in combat. In both Afghanistan and Iraq, moreover, resistance fighters are covered under the qualification that both are indigenous resistance forces covered under Geneva, uniformed or not.
Al Qaeda militia, however, probably do not qualify under Geneva with the exception of those who also fought under the former Afghan Taliban regime.
Still, Boss Bush is still a vicious greedy bastard with no regard for human lives other than his own. Him and his ilk subverted our Democratic-Republic and deserve far worse than the terrorists.

2) Attack Pakistan and Saudi Arabia? ARE YOU CRAZY!!! We can barely
hold onto power in Iraq with its mere 30 million people and soldier friendly terrain. How the hell are we supposed to take on Pakistan with like 100 million people living in miserable mountains.

Actually, I think it’s more like 140 million. But most of them live in flatlands, not mountains.

The combined
wealth and power of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia with require Bush to put America on war footing and mobilize the entire country. Me, a 24 year old man, would have to go fight. I’m not dying to those ungreatful SOBs. If they draft me and my fellow upper middle class friends you
better believe the ICBM’s will carpet bomb those two countries off the
face of the earth cause there’s no way in hell my parents or grandparents will stand for me being in the line of fire.That’s pretty much all I disagree with you about right now. okay, the Tillman comic was offensive and over the top but it was also damn funny.
R.I.P. Hunter S.

Yeah, invading Pakistan and Saudi Arabia would probably have been terrible ideas. But, unlike Afghanistan and Iraq, they would have been terrible ideas that would have helped to avenge 9/11.

For the Last Time…

…I am not a Democratic Party strategist. I have no stake whatsoever in whether Hillary or whoever runs on the platform of what’s left of the American left in 2008. So why do people keep writing stuff like this from RShake?:

I have seen you on various News programs. I am currently a registered Democrat. I have been a Reform Party member, Republican, & Libertarian. I am in fact one of those elusive swing voters. I am amused at how you think to persuade people to support issues that you espouse to when you villify them as stupid? Not a very effective strategy. Mostly I am disappointed in the Moonbat, Tin foil Hat mentality that permeates the Democratic Party in lieu of the last election.
I almost wonder if this email is wasting my time & energy as I am certain it will not resonate with the intended receiver. Sadly when vitriol and insults are used instead of dialogue there is little hope for any real effective communication. There was a time not too long ago that Liberals listened to Conservatives with courtesy. Even when they did agree with the content of the message. Liberals were primarily in control of the Congress at that time. Perhaps that is one reason they were in control. When I tried to listen to Air America all I hear is whining and insults. It does not win people to your way of thinking.

I remember when liberals used to listen to conservatives with courtesy. And all the while, in race after race, the hard right–which hijacked the GOP back in 1976–was running vile attack ads with little or no response from their opponents. And it worked. Republicans resorted to base tactics year after year. Then it spread to the media, and got especially nasty after 9/11. Treasonous crone Ann Coulter started smearing true patriots (i.e., progressive Americans) as anti-American. (Perhaps it was projection, since she thinks Joe McCarthy was a swell guy.)
Anyway: liberals got tired of getting beaten up and insulted, and decided (thank God!) to start giving back a little to hate-filled Republicans. Whining and insults? Better get ready for more of the same. We didn’t start this fight, but by God we’ll finish it.

Andrew Sullivan, Self-Hating Liar

Allen writes:

As usual I enjoyed your column even though it was a little “out there.”
Andrew Sullivan is a “gay GOP blogger?” Did you read his endorsement for
John Kerry? Is it really important to point out that he is gay? Or was that
just a cheap shot?

Yes, Sullivan endorsed Kerry–because Bush came out for a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage. (This is why he gets the big TIME magazine bucks–because he couldn’t see that coming.) Which is why I pointed out that he is gay. Not only does Sullivan talk about being gay all the time, it’s a core part of his political identity, so much so that after spending years sucking up to Bush while he set up concentration camps that he only turned slightly against him over gay marriage. Besides, “gay Republican” is like “Jewish Nazi”–it’s a bizarre indicator that someone is off their rocker, politically and possibly otherwise.

You sound like a schoolboy whining about name calling and such on right wing blogs. Give me a break, have you ever read Democratic Underground? Does
Kos not have the same kinds of posts on his open threads? If you can dish
out columns about Reagan burning in hell and Pat Tillman being a sap before
his dead ass was even cold then why bitch about a few right wing loons
making gay ass threats? (Metaphor overload).

Perhaps DU and Kos have similarly violent comments in similar portions, but if so I’ve never been able to find them. There’s a big difference between strident invective and threats of violence; the left specializes in the former while the right prefers its politics Gestapo style. And there’s a HUGE difference between saying that Reagan is burning in hell (if there is such a place)and threatening to murder someone.
Here’s an exercise: substitute “George Bush” for “Ted Rall” in those lines. Now ask yourself: would the Secret Service take an interest in those revised quotes?

If Eason Jordon was so right about the journalists why did he not show some
examples? If you’re running CNN you gotta have the facts when you run your
mouth like that.

David Horowitz’s Neo-McCarthyite Blacklist

Anyone who doubts that Bushite right-wingers are presiding over a new 1950s-style witch hunt in their constant equation of dissent to treason need only turn to ideological turncoat David Horowitz’s highly-touted right-wing online blacklist “Discover the Network”. According to Horowitz, his site “is a ‘Guide to the Political Left.’ It identifies the individuals and organizations that make up the left and also the institutions that fund and sustain it; it maps the paths through which the left exerts its influence on the larger body politic; it defines the left’s (often hidden) programmatic agendas and it provides an understanding of its history and ideas.”
Hm. Sounds innocuous enough.
But Horowitz makes a big leap: he mixes in Islamic terrorists with the supposed liberals. Next to the listing for Al Sharpton, then, is one for Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the head of Al Qaeda in Iraq. Ayatollah Kholmeini (someone should tell Horowitz he’s dead) of Iran is next to Barack Obama, the up and coming Democratic Senator. There’s Johnny Walker Lindh, American Talib, next to Katrina vanden Heuvel, editor of The Nation. It’s a reprehensible, vile smear, and it would be laughable if (a) it didn’t read like those anti-abortion hitlist websites and (b) it wasn’t so patently untrue. Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the Al Qaeda operative, hardly shares a political agenda with UN chief Kofi Annan, whose images appear side by side. In fact, radical Islamism shares a lot more in common with radical Republicanism–both hate women, believe in a fundamentalist interpretation of their respective scriptures and want to take over the world. But never let the facts get in the way of a political smear, Mr. Horowitz.
There is, in this case, a personal angle. I am, apparently, the only cartoonist on a list that includes such luminaries as John Kerry and Kewisi Mfume. I’m easy to find: I’m “right” there at #673 (the list is in alphabetical, rather than ideological, order) between Massoud Rajavi and Sheikh Alaa Ramadan, who I assume are supposed to be my new best friends.
Anyone familiar with my work has got to laugh at my second supposed sin: “Reserves condemnation only for Republicans.” I mean, what’s wrong with that? Not that it’s true: ask Bill Clinton how warm and fuzzy he feels about the way I batted his ass around for eight years. I’m an equal opportunity politician basher; it’s just that these days, there aren’t many powerful left politicians left. And the rest of the listing is full of similar garbage.
Even more interesting than the implicit linking of patriotic Americans with Islamist terrorists is the fact that no mainstream Republican can be counted upon to condemn Horowitz. Where is John McCain to repudiate this shit? One must assume, therefore, that the mainstream GOP agrees with Horowitz’s smear tactics. God knows the right-wing bloggers do.

On Genocide

Mike writes:

First of all, I love your cartoons…and agree with ALMOST everything you say about MOST subjects. But I do want to offer a minor quibble- whatever you think of the Iraq war or the Afghan war (I’m totally against the first, but felt the second was justified), you really shouldn’t use the word “genocide” to describe it. In my opinion, its not even close to genocide, and cheapens the word (sort of like when people throw around the word “rape” to describe things other than, well, rape.)
“Genocide” is more than just killing a lot of people- we usually use that word when we are talking about the attempt to wipe out an entire ethnic group, and where they are singled out because of their ethnicity. “Genocide” also usually means specifically going after civilians, as opposed to killing significant numbers of them while going after soldiers. There are always civilian casualties in any war, but all wars are not genocide. Whatever you think of the Iraq war (and I’m almost as opposed to it as you are), you must realize that if we really wanted to wipe out the Iraqi people, we would have done it a bit differently, and there wouldn’t be 160,000 dead- there’d be millions.
…
So stop throwing around the word “genocide”, when “slaughter” or “humanitarian disaster” would be more accurate. Other than that, keep up the good work.

I wish more thinking folks like Mike would take another look at the invasion of Afghanistan–the war even lefties can get behind because the Taliban were such brutes. (Like Saddam wasn’t?) But hey, I’ve already written two books about that. If only I could convince more people to read them!
So. What about genocide?
Noting that it’s a new word, dating to the liberation of the first Nazi death camps in 1944, my dictionary calls it “the deliberate and systematic destruction of a racial, political, or cultural group.” The United States is presently engaged in the deliberate and systematic destruction of a political and cultural group: Iraqi civilians. Remember, even the insurgents are civilians–our own Pentagon designated them as such by virtue of denying them protection under the Geneva Conventions. So every insurgent/resistor we kill in Iraq is by definition an act of genocide against Iraqi civilians. Of course, others may take issue. And I may change my mind, since genocide is usually reserved for events like the attempted extermination of the Tutsis in Rwanda during the early ’90s. But I don’t feel prepared to back away from the term just yet.

O’Reilly on Churchill, Redux: Maybe He Should Be Fired After All

Thanks to FOR Matt for sending this along:

These quotes are about the closest O’Reilly has come to giving his opinion on firing Churchill. He seems to be moving closer to saying he should be fired, but he hasn’t come right out and said it yet.
______________________________________________________
February 9, 2005 Wednesday
SHOW: THE O’REILLY FACTOR 8:00 PM EST
…
O’REILLY: The only people, huh? So in the world, according to Churchill, if you sell bonds, insurance, or anything else that furthers capitalism, you’re a Nazi.
For this kind of reasoning, the University of Colorado is paying the guy almost $100,000. Now some say Churchill should be charged with treason or sedition. We’ll examine that in a few moments. But clearly, the man has some constitutional protections. Where he is vulnerable is in the competency area.
As we mentioned last night, he wrote a book saying that Israel is perpetuating a Holocaust against the Palestinians, and that Hitler’s government did not have an institutional plan to exterminate European Jews. Both those statements are false, provable, just like two plus two equals five is false.
If a math teacher put forth that equation, the math teacher would be fired. If an ethnic studies teacher denies the Third Reich had a policy of Jewish mass murder, that teacher has to go.
So say goodbye to Churchill. I predict he’ll be fired for incompetence by early March. Now I could be wrong. And even if I’m right, the ACLU will sue on his behalf. That’ll be a fascinating case.
But in the end, there are consequences for controversial speech. Every day of my life, someone attacks me because I’m outspoken. There’s little I can do but absorb the slander, libel and defamation that comes my way. And so it will be with Churchill. He will pay a big price for his hatred of America and his cruelty to the 9/11 families. But the price should be fair and reasonable. And that’s the Memo….
___________________________________________
Fox News Network February 7, 2005 Monday
SHOW: THE O’REILLY FACTOR 8:55 PM EST
…
Jason Bruno, Chico, California, “O’Reilly, your push for Churchill’s firing is ridiculous.”
And so is your letter, Mr. Bruno. I’ve said many times I am not for firing the guy, although I am reevaluating this based on new information….
_____________________________________________
Fox News Network February 3, 2005 Thursday
SHOW: THE O’REILLY FACTOR 8:29 PM EST
…
O’REILLY: Sure, sure. All right, Carol. Thanks very much.
And here are the results of our billoreilly.com poll question. We asked you: Should Churchill be fired from the University of Colorado? More than 25,000 of you voted. Eighty-six percent say, yes, he should be fired; 14 percent say no. I was in the no category there. We’ll leave the poll question up over the weekend in case you want to weigh in.

Sure sounds like O’Reilly wants Churchill fired to me.

Hunter S. Thompson

We can assume what demons drove the good doctor to commit suicide, but no one knows besides those who were closest to him. What we do know is the example he set, which was to write journalism without giving a shit about causing offense to the rich and powerful scum who deserve disdain for their disolute lives. We also know his influence, which was way too small. Many read him, but too few writers ever had the guts to follow in his footsteps.
I wouldn’t be able to do what I do if it hadn’t been for Dr. Thompson. Told to pick up his books by friends in college, I was immediately taken by his take-no-prisoners writing style; while I doubt I’ll ever come close to his achievement as a writer, I’ve certainly adapted his willingness to take on anyone and anybody who deserves it, damn the torpedoes. His mainstream success proved that honesty is marketable; that has surely paid a few rent bills for me over the years. Rest well, Hunter, but you’ll be missed for you are needed now more than ever.