Titty Falafel Strikes Again!

Bill O’Reilly has long since gone off the deep-end and is now spending all his time sucking the drain at the bottom of the pool.  I’m serious.  I just read this crap from Media Matters and it just confirms the fact.  If you haven’t heard the clip, you should.  In it, Bill states in no uncertain terms that, because San Franciscans voted to ban military recruiters from their high schools and colleges, it would be perfectly acceptable with him for Al Qaeda to bomb the city.  Not only that, but that if they did bomb that “we’re not going to do anything about it.”

Needless to say, the only thing preventing this from being considered traitorous is simply because nobody would actually take him seriously.  Nor was he being truly serious.  If you hear the clip, it’s obvious that he wasn’t making a joke; but I’m sure he doesn’t really mean what he said either.  He was just trying to impress the youngsters in the audience.  But if he had the final choice on this, I’m sure he would choose to not bomb San Fran; if for no other reason than because he’d hate to risk losing his loofah supply.  But he obviously has no problem using that kind of strong rhetoric.  

And there are so many problems with his statement that it really makes it hard to know which part to focus on.  But here’s the part for me: Why are conservatives so fucking clueless when it comes to Al Qaeda and what makes them tick?  Because they always get it wrong.  The whole “Al Qaeda says America wants to take over the Muslim world, so we’re going to invade a Muslim country and prove them right” thing is probably the main thing.  But it goes deeper than that.

America’s Safest City

And here it is in this case: Say some Al Qaeda operative was listening to O’Reilly’s show (these terrorists are crazy, so I wouldn’t put it past them), would they have taken Bill up on his offer and bomb San Francisco?  Or even more so, if President Bush made a similar statement, and said that we wouldn’t retaliate or anything for bombing San Fran, and that the city was not “off-limits.”  Assuming that the terrorists took it seriously and believed it to be true, would that encourage Al Qaeda to attack?

Of course not.  That would defeat the whole purpose.  The whole purpose of them bombing us is to show us that they can hurt us and that we can’t stop them from doing so; and to therefore make us negotiate with them or compromise or give-in or something.  But…if we open up the city for them to bomb…there wouldn’t be any fucking point for them to do so!  So in effect, if the terrorists were to take O’Reilly’s symbolic offer seriously, he has made San Francisco the safest city in America!

Additionally, if the reason O’Reilly or Bush was inviting them to bomb was because San Francisco wanted to prevent our military from recruiting at their schools; it would seem that Al Qaeda would even be less likely to attack them.  If anything, they’d send a note of thanks.

The Muslim Bogeymen

But to guys like Bill O’Reilly, that kind of thing is beside the point.  I’m sure he’d wholeheartedly agree that Al Qaeda would want San Fran to vote that way, but that’s not where he was going with this.  No.  Instead, the angle he was taking, at least at this point of his show, was in using Al Qaeda as the bogeyman.  As someone to scare the kids back into line with.  

But this isn’t an isolated incident at all.  In fact, this is how the O’Reilly’s always use Al Qaeda.  As if it’s their personal threat; to use whenever they feel.  As if it’s something they can throw at others, to keep them in line.  Like your folks saying that Santa wouldn’t get you anything if you acted bad.  When they say it, they hope it’s true; but in the end, you always get something, no matter how dicky you behaved.

Heck, it’s even more like when wacko Pat Robertson told the residents of Dover, PA earlier this week that they had “voted God out of (their) city,” and couldn’t ask him for help anymore.  As if Pat’s got some kind of direct hotline to God and knows what God wants taught in our schools.  Who the hell does he think he is?  The fucking Pope or something?  Jesus christ, what a egohead!

But that’s what this is all about.  Them using Al Qaeda as a device to keep us in line.  If there wasn’t an Al Qaeda, these jerks would have invented one (and there are some reasons to suspect they did).  But the Al Qaeda of their imagination is never the one of reality.  Theirs is always the Al Qaeda that thought we’d sue them after 9/11; and just needs to be shown one last lesson before it’ll die out in disgrace.  The Al Qaeda that risks their lives, simply because they “hate freedom”; but will fold like a paper hat if given the toughguy routine.  The Al Qaeda that “wins” or “loses” on a daily basis; depending on how Congress votes, and how optimistic the libs are on the Yahoo message boards.

In fact, this is all is reminding me of the whole Devil story.  About the wicked angel who was cast out from Heaven by God, and then has nothing better to do than to punish God’s enemies and those who disobey God’s laws.  Uh, hello!  Why would the Devil punish God’s enemies?  He hates God.  If anything, he’d be buying Hitler and the rest of them a beer and thanking them for a job well done.  I can understand a little S&M action with the hot chicks or something; but I really can’t see it being so much fun to be sticking hot pokers up Stalin’s butthole for all of eternity.  Call me crazy, but I suspect the Devil has better things to do with his time.  We can only hope, right?

And the same goes for the Republican’s Al Qaeda.  For some reason, it’s all about punishing Bush’s enemies and those who make America weak.  I don’t understand why Bin Laden would risk his life, just so Bush could pressure Congress into authorizing another taxcut; but I guess they don’t call him a madman for nothing.  Then again, perhaps this is all an evil plan by Osama to allow Bush to ruin our economy; and thus destroy our great nation.  Makes you think, huh.



Extra Bonus: The O’Reilly We Can Never Forget (The first in a new series)
(per Smoking Gun)

34.  During the course of this dinner in approximately early May 2002, Plaintiff’s supervisor, Defendant BILL O’REILLY, lavished Plaintiff ANDREA MACKRIS with unsolicited advice regarding her handling of future relationships with members of the opposite sex.  Defendant BILL O’REILLY advised Plaintiff ANDREA MACKRIS to avoid future contact with her ex-fiancé, to have manicures and pedicures and “pick up 23-year-old men in bars,” to attend charity events and meet men with credentials, and to otherwise spend the next year doing what she felt like doing, without thinking twice about the consequences.  Defendant BILL O’REILLY then suggested at the end of the year, they’d discuss promoting Plaintiff to a producer position for “The O’Reilly Factor.”

35.  After these words during the course of their dinner in early May 2002, Defendant BILL O’REILLY’s demeanor abruptly changed.  O’REILLY’s eyes became glazed and bizarrely strayed in opposite directions.  Suddenly, without provocation or warning, Defendant BILL O’REILLY said to Plaintiff ANDREA MACKRIS: “And just use your vibrator to blow off steam.”  When Plaintiff reddened, Defendant BILL O’REILLY asked lewdly: “What, you’ve got a vibrator, don’t you?  Every girl does.”  When Plaintiff responded indignantly, “No, and no, they don’t.  Does your wife?”  Defendant replied: “Yes, in fact she does.  She’d kill me if she knew that I was telling!” Plaintiff was repulsed.

Extra Bonus Quiz

1) Why did Bill O’Reilly’s wife not kill him?  What did she receive instead?

2) Is it possible to have sex with Bill O’Reilly and not think twice about the consequences?  What if he hadn’t drugged you?

3) Is it really sexual harassment if they make the men do the same things?  What if it’s in their corporate charter?  Explain.

4) Is this really any different from what they make their employees do every day on television?  I mean, really??

Extra-Extra Bonus Question: In fifty words or less, explain whether you’d prefer to sleep with Bill O’Reilly for a year, and end up as a producer on his show (ugh!); or to act as the official Whitehouse correspondent for Fox News throughout the 2004 election season, with a promise that Kerry would eventually win.  Also explain why existing rape laws should cover both scenarios.

Remember, in both cases it is mandatory to perform to your boss’s satisfaction; and there’s always the possibility that they’re lying and you’ll end up with nothing.  You have fifty minutes to complete this quiz.  Good luck.