Meanwhile, At The NY Post...
An editorial in today's New York Post shares Bill O'Reilly sentiments on San Francisco... minus the thumbs-up for a terrorist attack on Coit Tower. Not surprising, of course, since the Post editorial writers and O'Reilly collect their paycheck from the same company.
MEANWHILE, ON THE LEFT COAST...
Lost amid the discussion of whether last week's election results portend a dis mal future for Republicans has been a more interesting question: Does San Francisco's balloting this year foreshadow its eventual withdrawal from the United States of America?
We ask simply because voters there are acting as if the city's already seceded...
Yes, anarchy and chaos are right around the corner for the Bay City.
posted by BlueDuck @ 3:45 PM
2 comments
2 Comments:
Bill O'Reilly's incendiary comments not withstanding, you have to admit there is a deep seeded hostility towards the country, its military, and traditions (pledge of allegiance...9th circus court anyone) emanating from the Bay area.
So much so that even Senator Diane Feinestein has taken notice.
Whether it's protesting the shipment of supplies to our troops (Oakland), Canceling Veteran's Day (Berkeley), or banning the docking of a decommissioned Naval ship (San Fran), the Oakland/Berkeley/San Francisco triangle has started to represent the axis of Anti-Americanism.
Feinstein noted that this hostility "isn't the San Francisco that I've known and loved and grew up in and was born in. I thought that in view of what's going on and in view of the loss of lives of our men and women, [banning the ship] was a very petty decision."
Maybe it's redux from the Haight-Ashbury days because it seems to me that something is in the water.
No matter how much one is opposed to the war, these positions are clearly out of the mainstream of even taste. Veteran's Day is a problem?? Blocking supplies to troops stationed overseas??
It's a good thing that the USS Arizona isn't docked in the San Francisco bay otherwise it'd be looking for a new home.
P.S. If O'Reilly looses any sponsors of the Radio Factor, it will more likely be for his ratings, not his content. People still sponsor Stern and Opie and Anthony. The radio buyers know O'Reilly schitck is his wild comments when they buy time.
I am aware that San Francisco has made some particularly controversial decisions that, yes, do not reflect the overall view of the country. Many of them, of course, I do not personally agree with.
But O'Reilly mentioned none of this stuff in his rant- just focusing in on the decision to ban recruiters from schools, a decision I do actually agree with. While recruiters should be free to do their work, schools are off-limits. It's not that kids aren't smart or mature enough to make that decision (well, c'mon, we went to high school/college- we know they really aren't), it's compounded by the predatory, tricky ways today's recruiters use to rope in their marks. The army 'doesn't condone' these tactics, but they certainly look the other way. Under Rumsfeld's leadership, today's army often behaves disgracefully and is a sad reflection of its former self. If the military were to change this trend and, in particular, seriously stop predatory recruiters and end quotas (etc) that make that happen... well then I would definitely have no issue with them returning to schools.
Basically, I think it's a more a thumbs-down of the current state of the military, than the institution itself. The idea also of removing federal funding simply because recruiters are barred is also a bit... ya know... fascist in nature.
Regardless, the issue here isn't even really whether O'Reilly had a right to be angry at the city's decisions... although are the hypocrites like him who tell others to serve, but avoided service themselves, in a position to be judgmental? Absolutely not. Chickenhawks talk, but they've never walked that walk. I certainly wouldn't serve, but I don't call others to either.
The issue here is what he said.
Anger or not, hyperbole or not, O'Reilly was wrong with a capital "Dubya" to say that the city deserved a terrorist attack... a call particularly unfortunate in that he said terrorists should hit a building that stands as a tribute to firefighters. You have noted, correctly, that many hysterical people on the far left express their anger at the President by saying he should be shot or tortured or punched in the junk. But O'Reilly's statement to me then comes off as hypocrite, and a little more radical. He says he stands by what he says, but when he talked about it on the radio and on TV last night, he never mentioned his terrorism comments and they were even removed on his show's transcripts. He is, as the President would say, 'rewriting history'. All to better blame it on the left-wing conspiracy. Because you how much power we have.
I stand by my main statement that if Wolf Blitzer, or someone similar, had made those remarks, the right-wing bloggers would've seem to his immediate and public fall from grace and eventual removal, as they did to Dan Rather. Bill Maher was fired from ABC for a remark that, in comparison, wasn't as bad. I feel those decisions were wrong and do not think O'Reilly should be fired per se, but since he is such a hypocrite and holds everyone up to such high standards, he deserves some repercussions.
Just my two (okay, ten) cents.
Post a Comment
<< Home