It's come to my attention, via Bill O'Rielly, that all his critics are supposedly funded by you, in order to provide "lies and smears."
I didn't know anyone needed to be paid to pick on Bill. Making fun of Bill is getting cheaper every day, to the point of being a minor vice like chewing gum. If it were a full time effort, of course, it might be another matter; having to actually listen to every word of his would be for me right up there with golf, gardening and exposure to sunlight.
I can see asking for grants to ease the pain might be in order if I were dedicated to listening to and transcribing all the the conservative asshattery out there. And clearly, Media Matters deserves our support for all the harmless fun it provides us. So if you have been clandestinely slipping them money under the table - thank you. And if you haven't, why not?
Despite my impressively well-endowed IQ, I still don't quite understand how it would be wrong for you to fund Media Matters, or even directly fund a "smear site" that unfairly targeted Bill O'Rielly. Short of provably actionable statements, e have a First Amendment and last I checked, there wasn't an "except for rich people" clause.
Even stranger, it's seems to be OK by Bill if Sun Myung Moon, that Coors fella and Rupert Murdoch perform the same exact stunts he's accusing you of, to the tune of many, many millions more. Could it be that he sincerely believes that everyone is as obviously corrupt as he, with no motives but the ulterior? Or perhaps he simply can't understand that he and his ilk simply don't matter enough for you to notice.
I'm less concerned at the double standard, where "Lies and Smears" are bad for Liberals (and me) but OK for the "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" I don't really mind being held to a higher standard than Bill and the Swifties.
It really isn't that hard.
But I do find it hilarious that Bill and his listeners are incapable of noticing a level of cognitive dissonance that should literally crack their skulls. Or at least Bill is. Perhaps by this point a significant fraction of his listeners are rolling in the aisles at his expense. I'm sure they are over at Media Matters. Hell, I wonder if there's a pool on Bill's next public meltdown?
Anyway, I must congratulate you on maintaining plausible deniablity in this matter of the funding you OF COURSE have not provided by way of the clever ploy of provoking Bill into this "hard-hitting expose.'" As most of America has come to realize, if Bill says it, it ain't plausible.
But I AM somewhat miffed at Bill's latest excretion, courtesy of Media Matters.
Now, I confess I've never actually had to lie about Bill, not with so many sharp and truthful rocks lying about, sadly unused. I'll admit to an occasional negative appreciation of him, the odd derogatory comment, but then, I'm an editorialist. I try and tell the truth as I see it, but it is my own humble opinion that he's a corrupt, lying, womanizing incompetent who WISHES he had access to as good a grade of pharmaceuticals as Rush Limbaugh. But having said that, I do understand that he may feel unappreciated by those of us with IQ's above that of tepid water and the capability to read and comprehend above a fourth-grade level.
No, what troubles me is that, despite our alleged collusion, you have yet to buy one of my t-shirts! These are very high-quality shirts, even a billionaire would be hard-pressed to find such a combination of ring-spun cotton goodness and hilarity. Furthermore, they are available in a full spectrum of politically relevant colors. They display a particularly skillful and unflattering image of Bill and the light-colored shirts feature a reverse (shown above) that says "No Whining."
Now, in the spirit of candor our conversations have always enjoyed, Iconfess that I'm not really a Liberal; I know that O'Rielly, Limbaugh and the like would say I am, even as they say you are, but I'm a Libertarian and you are a Billionaire, so I expect our mileage varies on a few, tiny, barely perceptible core issues of Liberalism.
But O'Rielly and those who find him compelling and persuasive continue to lump all their opponents together as "liberals," as if common sense, competence, ethics and a sense of proportion were the native fruits of any political philosophy. Would that they were, of course, but I doubt I'll live to see that day.
Still, I was somewhat miffed to find that we have been lumped together thusly and rudely by Bill: (Transcript, of course, from Media Matters,) apparently as a result of the gleeful fun-poking at his expense by all and sundry due to the Indiana University Study.
By the way, did you know that Soros' Open Society Institute donated $5 million to Indiana University? I'm sure that was just a coincidence. Also sure that Soros is very disappointed he didn't get more bang for the buck this time around. Most of the committed left press didn't mention the nutty Indiana paper. Only those truly bought and paid for elements at NBC News and Rosie O'Donnell spit it out there.I confess a childish and sadistic glee in being able to write this headline: O'Rielly "less nuanced" than Father Charles Couglin. Other than that, the study was an exercise in quantifying the obvious; a five-finger exercise in sociology barely requiring statistical tools more complex than a clipboard and anti-nausea medication. But hey, what are undergraduates for?
For me, the sweetest bit is that references to Fr. Charles Couglin is probably lost on both O'Rielly and his core audience, making the allusion truly tragicomic. In Bill's case; "Those who will not remember history are forced to impersonate it."
Now, whether or not you cleverly funded this delightfully accurate research or whether it's the sort of thing students do when they are trying to find an easily documented research topic against a looming deadline with an eye toward sucking up to a particular professor is moot. As a result of being slightly associated with the production and enjoyment of these "inconvenient truths," you and I are now accused of being fellow "liberals."
But I suppose one could be called worse things; "Ineffective Liar" comes to mind.
I don't mind at all being called a Propagandist, that is what I am. However, there's white propaganda which relies on telling the most inconvenient possible truth in the most effective and damning way possible; "Black Propaganda," which is Karl Rove's forte' and then there's Bill - an embarrassment to competent propagandists everywhere.
You see, it's not so much his politics I despise, or even his lack of ethics both journalistic and personal. Even worse, in my mind, is the contempt for his audience his shoddy workmanship reveals. Cheap jingoism, clumsy and obvious false associations, moldy and unconvincing straw men and of course, the transparent appeal to the willful stupidity of anti-intellectualism, jingoism and racism. If carpenters built houses like Bill makes an argument, the first woodpecker to come along would destroy civilization.
However, I was trying to twist your arm, presuming upon our now obvious commonalities. Since we are now"Fellow Travelers" - along with Rosie O'Donald - may I point out that my Cafepress shirts now come in women's plus sizes?
tag: Bob King, Graphictruth, Bill O'Rielly, Cafepress, George Soros, Media Matters, Indiana State University, quoted accurately, Kieth Olbermann, Liberal Propaganda, Inconvenient Truths, Propagandists,