Dear Bill O'Rielly - Yo Mamma!

End Conservative Whining by webcarve
Make Custom T Shirts At www.zazzle.com
More Satire T-Shirts

I've been told that it is best to rise above petty insults, to refuse to descend to the level of uncultured tallywhackers such as Bill O'Rielly. But experience has told me that if one does not lower oneself just a little, no communication at all will occur. And more practically, while there may be no effect upon the target itself, the resounding "thwack" of correction may prove either instructing or amusing to one's audience. Echidne of the Snakes brings our attention to yet another turd plopping into the intellectual watershed of America. And - as is not unusual - it comes courtesy of Bill O'Rielly and - of course - the Fox Network.

It's Bill O'Reilly having fun imitating Helen Thomas, calling her the wicked witch of the East and so on. But the most fascinating bit is the one where O'Reilly asks us why his mother isn't out there sitting in the front row of Obama's press conference, asking questions. Or Colmes' mother. Or any old lady at all! (He doesn't say that but it's what he means.)

To deny Thomas the respect her experience and professional qualifications deserve is probably a sexist response on O'Reilly's part. Try a reversal by imagining an older male journalist in her place and then O'Reilly arguing that his own dad is equally qualified to ask questions at the press conference.

If you think O'Reilly should apologize for his comments, go here.

I would not bother demanding an apology - it amounts to the solicitation of perjury, without the satisfaction of being under oath.

More to the point, the proper response to offensive speech is more and better speech; that is to say, better targeted and far more amusing at the expense of the the target deserving such public correction.

I firmly believe this is a better and more productive response than the amusingly typical attempt to pressure Bill-O into apologizing to Helen Thomas for being disrespectful of her gender, age, wisdom and status. Hell, consider the source; the fact that he DOES disrespect her tells you exactly where he stands as a gentleman, journalist and carbon-based organism.

It's not so remarkable that he said what he did. It's that it's so apparent he believes that what he said is self-evident; moreover, that he believes that he is, due to his gender, skin color and political viewpoint, of inherently greater worth than Helen Thomas in particular and pretty much anyone else, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary that he's a moral and mental midget, unworthy of being in the same room - or time zone - of persons of any color, gender, political philosophy or sexual orientation with an actual informed opinion about anything at all.

It reminds me of the time my father - a life-long grifter, racist and Orangeman - informed me that he was of course a better man than Martin Luther King - after a reprise of the "I Have A Dream" speech.

He, like Bill, was held in contempt by anyone who had the misfortune to come to know him, much less have to do business with him. And like Bill - he was completely impervious to that well-earned contempt. Even by white racists.

If there was a cover illustration for "Unskilled and Unaware," it would properly feature Bill's smirking face.

So, here's my response, Bill.

Yo Momma.

Your Momma is embarrassed enough by your antics without you dragging her into this. And if she could hold her own in the front row in the white house press gallery - how come you turned out the way you did? Dude, your best gig was Hard Copy - it's been downhill ever since. I mean, from a journalistic perspective. The fact that you and your show is not a constant, burning humiliation to the people in charge of Fox News, in all aspects, simply shows how little they care about the people they exploit - which would include both their listeners and their employees.

There's no better illustration of that amoral calculus than the fact that you still have a job, loofa boy. Trust me on this, Bill-O; they don't employ you because they respect you; not one whisker more than they respect the poor saps that produce, direct and light your show while enduring your innuendos. The fact that you are permitted to still work following your serial public sexual embarrassments demonstrates a systemic lack of respect for anything but ratings, by whatever means.

You will be on the air just so long as it is still illegal to show convicts being raped to death by donkeys - as was the amusing practice of the Roman Colosseum shows - shows that pandered to the exact same demographic of unwashed, uneducated pinheads as you do. When Running Man was made - I'm absofuckinglutely sure that you were an inspiration to everyone involved.

You have always appealed to that sort of mindset, and in rude point of fact, that means that you have equal or less value to Fox News than a literal donkey dick. If they could replace you that way - they would. In a heartbeat. Nor would it trouble their consciences in the slightest. Their sociopathy is evident enough in the fact that they employ not just you, but many examples of persons no better and even less skilled.

It's also why you so deeply fear the return of the fairness doctrine - because you would be getting your asshole kicked up around your ears by the "other side" every single day. And I'm not speaking of persons of the stature of Noam Chomsky. You get owned by anyone who has a good opinion of themselves and a mike you haven't switched off yet.

Media Matters - whom you hate with a blind passion - need only archive your own words to prove that this is by no means an isolated lapse on your part. Sad to say, it's not even the most profound lapse, in a journalistic sense. They focus on your deliberate lies, things that are provably false to fact, as opposed to the oozing, palpable, sneering contempt for competence in any form; feeling that in the final analysis, malicious lies are of more significance than mere stupidity.

Your standard response to being busted for falsehoods is also documented. You just repeat it - louder. While whining about being picked on by "liberals." Bill, you are not only an embarrassment to journalists and editorialists of honor and stature - you even manage to be offensive by the standards of professional liars. Ask around. Use the grapevine. See if you can find out what Tony Snow really thinks of you. Even for such a polished prevaricator as the Snowman, it might be difficult for him to come up with a semblance of sincerity while uttering a complement. And I question the likelihood that he'd consider you significant enough to bother lying for.

The standards that permit you to flourish like black mold around the base of a badly installed toilet has caused people to confuse "liberalism" with "People who know what the hell they are talking about" and/or "People who don't lie to me."

Not being a Liberal, I find this somewhat troubling. But it HAS done wonders for Barack Obama in particular, and truth-tellers in general.

So, I say, turning my back on Bill and speaking to the gallery - what have we learned from this?

I have learned, once again, that anyone or anything that Bill O'Rielly thinks is bad is worth having a look at and than anything Bill hates and fears is quite likely worth doing. Twice.

Further, I've learned that anyone that makes Bill O's tiny penis shrink on air to the point where he has to mock and ridicule probably has a book that's well worth reading. And that's the best possible response to this public dissing of Helen Thomas - put her book on the best-seller list. And be sure to tell everyone why.

Gleaner, Wonkette and even maybe even John Stewart miss "Pappa Bear's" Best Line.

Once you listen to this, and savor O'rielly's amazing lame response to Stewart's artful on-air roast of him for not blaming the Palin's Sr. for the manifest indescretions of Young Ms. Palin as he had already done to Brittney Spears' parents for the indiscretion of the younger daughter, back up to the one minute mark.

Clearly it's easy to miss, but here's a crude transcript:

In a commentary a few months ago I scolded the parents of Brittney Spears for not supervising their children, a situation that has been well-documented....

Of course, there is no evidence that the Governor's children are unsupervised...

So, Bill, are you saying that Bristol Palin WAS supervised when she conceived? Do you have proof? Home video perhaps?

Should there be proof that she was under parental supervision when she became pregnant, I think there would be some rather pointed bi-partisan interest in such a family dynamic, even before we consider who by, really.

On the other hand, Bill, if you are actually suggesting what my catholic-educated ears picked out of the background noise - that Bristol's baby is the product of an "Immaculate Conception," - I think I'll tell you what I suggested to Fr. Kieran, SJ, just before he told me to shut me heathen yap.

Which is it, Bill? Was she "properly supervised?" By whom? And how does pregnancy fit into "proper supervision" when we all know that in her family's moral scheme, that would make her A Bad Girl Who Is Probably Going To Hell?

...even in cases of rape and incest.

I mean, Bill, if you really respected the Palins - or anything other than your loofa - you really ought to try and do an honest day's work of spin control. All the total effect of your "clarification" was to make things one hell of a lot worse for the Palins.

I mean, not that I particularly care. I happen to believe that you don't bet on getting a nice red Roma tomato from a deadly nightshade - even if they are closely related.

In the matter of O'Reilly v. Godwin

Media Matters - O'Reilly: No escaping "the similarities between what Hitler ... did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing": "O'Reilly: No escaping 'the similarities between what Hitler ... did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing'

Summary: On The O'Reilly Factor, Bill O'Reilly responded to a viewer's letter -- criticizing O'Reilly for a 'lapse of judgment' regarding his statement that he did not 'see any difference between [Huffington Post founder Arianna] Huffington and the Nazis' -- by defending the statement. O'Reilly said: 'If you look back at what happened in Germany, you cannot escape the similarities between what Hitler and his cutthroats did back then and the hate-filled blogs, what they're doing now.'"

Yep. they both explore concepts and advocate positions that Bill cannot comprehend, due to his complete, willful ignorance.

In ordinary discourse, of course, it is considered to be a norm that a gratuitous comparison of a critic to Nazis amounts to a concession of the total argument.

Goddess, it becomes so damn embarrassing to even admit the slightest tendancy toward Conservatism in any way, on any matter, for fear of being confused with the mouth-breathing lickspittles that watch his show. But then I remember what the rest of the world calls much of what we think of as NeoConservatism.
NeoLiberalism.

Then I feel better.

O'Rielly promotes idea that "liberals are more dangeous than terrorists."

I blogged earliler about this,working just from a bare description. I still haven't found a transcript, but the reaction and outrage continues to spread.

The article linked below points out that Bill'O is very fond of Hate Speech, Nazi-style eliminationist rhetoric and conspiracy theories himself.

AlterNet: Blogs: PEEK: Bill O'Reilly Compares Progressive Bloggers to Nazis and KKK: "O'Reilly Promotes Violence and Conspiracy, But Condemns Deliberative Debate

In this quote from the end of the book, D'Souza sent his 9/11 conspiracy theory a careening over the cliff of violent language and logic, making an argument plain and simple enough for even Bill O'Reilly to understand (emphasis mine):

In reality, the left already has a foreign policy and a strategy, and it is called working in tandem with bin Laden to defeat Bush. As we have seen, the left and the Islamic radicals operate like the two sides of a scissors, each prong working separately, but toward the same end. Conservatives need to identify the enemy at home and show its tacit relationship with the foreign enemy. Not only is there a close parallel between the rhetoric of the two groups, but they have the same goal of defeating Bush in Iraq, and they need each other to accomplish this goal. In short the left is the domestic insurgency that provides a counterpart to the Iraq insurgency. It is at least as dangerous as any of bin Laden's American sleeper cells.

(Dinesh D'Souza, The Enemy at Home, p. 269)

Now, at this point--most Americans would read this passage and think: Oh, my, god. This book accuses the "cultural left" of being "at least as dangerous" as terrorists plotting to kill Americans with poison gas and nuclear bombs. Yep. That is exactly what D'Souza argued in the book. Not satisfied with floating a crackpot theory about liberals causing 9/11, D'Souza drives right into crazy town--redefining liberals as terrorists. The result, for those who actually take D'Souza seriously, is the idea that America should be hunting down liberals in the same way that they are hunting down terrorists--to be a liberal is to be a violent enemy of America, the only rightful end for which is death. Although wrapped up in the niceties of academic language, D'Souza's book is essentially a 300-page call for the death penalty against anyone identified with the left in America.

I have already blogged about this sort of hate speech - and what needs to be done about it.

Graphictruth: "Why Do You Hate America, Mr. King?": "We don't 'hate America,' Willhelm. There are certain people who claim to be patriotic Americans, while disparaging the values expressed by our Constitution and the Inalienable Rights recognized by it, that we could frankly do without.

Yourself, for example. [There's more...] You are not representative of core American values, as expressed in the Federalist Papers, the letters of Franklin, the writings of Adams, or worthy of citizenship when you can speak about 'knowing our place.'

Sir, 'our place' is in the Militia, defending the Constitution against all threats, foreign and domestic. You - and your self-deluded, authoritarian ilk - are precisely such a threat.

THIS - right here - IS such a 'well regulated militia,' using the power of the press under the aegis of the First Amendment. But if need be, we citizens are charged to do the same under the Second, should it come to pass that our government is suborned and becomes indistinguishable from any other Tyranny.

A Militia is any group of citizens coming together with their skills , talents and ability in common cause and without need to be told by some self-styled 'Commander in Chief' what to do or how to do it.

However, I do not actually hate you. Strong emotion can spoil your aim."

Bill-O Blitzed by HS Junior

Dear Bill O'Rielly: Do you KNOW how much your producer hates your loofa-waving guts?

The following painfully viral video demonstrates what happens when your staff doesn't care to send you out properly prepared, or do a decent background on the student. Oh, wait, maybe they mentioned he was on the debate team, and you didn't grasp the significance. Yeah, I bet that was the way it went down.

Of course, since you HAVE been "the driving force" behind this controversy, the Other Side sent their very best debater, prepared with - heh - evidence! Then he just had to wait for a lie he could document. And the "other side" was represented by someone who was apparently conservative - and whom I will bet is in the Drama club. He played the "good cop."

I give them a 1. You get a 4.

I mean, the kid didn't even have to break a sweat. All I can say, Bill, is you are lucky they didn't send a senior.

clipped from www.radaronline.com

Last week, O'Reilly imploded during an interview with Jesse Lange, a rising junior at Boulder High School in Colorado (video above). He was on the program to address O'Reilly's criticism of the Boulder High sex-education program. Lange tells Radar that he knew he was brought on for an opposing view, but his main concern before the show was how to address O'Reilly. "I wasn't sure whether or not I should call him Bill or Mr. O'Reilly," Lange tells Radar. "In the end, I decided to call him Bill, because if I called him Mr. O'Reilly, it would imply that I viewed him as some sort of expert or authority figure." Lange also says that in a brief pre-show interview, O'Reilly asked him not to quote the incendiary parts from The O'Reilly Factor For Kids. "Bill expressly asked me not to talk about it on the air," he says, but the book was the perfect counterpoint to O'Reilly's thinly constructed premise.

Oh, and the comments! My God, the comments! There are actually people who honestly think Bill won that exchange!

But I think the best summation comes from Bill's Arch Nemesis.



Ouch. That's gonna leave a welt.

Bill O'Rielly to John McCain:

Bill O'Reilly: But do you understand what the New York Times wants, and the far-left want? They want to break down the white, Christian, male power structure, which you're a part, and so am I, and they want to bring in millions of foreign nationals to basically break down the structure that we have. In that regard, Pat Buchanan is right. So I say you've got to cap with a number.

Transcript courtesy Democrats.org

McCain failed completely to dissociate himself from this statement. I'm not much impressed by his attempt to duck O'Rielly's smug, cheesy racism.

John McCain: In America today we've got a very strong economy and low unemployment, so we need addition farm workers, including by the way agriculture, but there may come a time where we have an economic downturn, and we don't need so many.

[crosstalk]

O'Reilly: But in this bill, you guys have got to cap it. Because estimation is 12 million, there may be 20 [million]. You don't know, I don't know. We've got to cap it.

McCain: We do, we do. I agree with you.

Democrats.org highlights the "I agree with you," no doubt hoping ot imply that McCain agrees that it is iimportant to maintain the white Christian male power structure.

Me, I'm not sure that's a fair statement, but on the other hand, McCain failed to punch O'Rielly in the face for sleazing him by implication. So either he does agree, or he figures he can't afford to offend people who like Bill.

Now, I think he's tragically wrong on that. I don't think taking Bill to the woodshed, verbally or otherwise, could hurt ANYONE's election chances. And if he cut McCain's mike - now that would be pure electoral gold.

Bill O'Rielly, John McCain, Racism, 2008

An Open Letter to George Soros

Dear George Soros:

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?

Regards;

Bob King.

tag: Bob King, Graphictruth, Bill O'Rielly, Cafepress, George Soros, Media Matters, Indiana State University, quoted accurately, Kieth Olbermann, Liberal Propaganda, Inconvenient Truths, Propagandists,

O'Rielly "less nuanced" than Father Charles Couglin

Bill O'Rielly makes me snicker uncontrollably whenever he says he's "fair and balanced" or refers to his show as "The No-Spin Zone." Fact is, he's a hack and a mouthpiece, anyone who'd ever seen him on the trash-tv show, "Hard Copy" knows that his journalistic standards are short of that tolerated by the "National Enquirer."

But it's nice to have real data to expose the lazy, lying slug for what he is, using actual data based on his actual content.

When the data show you to be "less nuanced" than Father Charles Coughlin, you are not "fair and balanced," you are in fact fairly unbalanced. Perhaps even in a clinical sense!

Content analysis of O'Reilly's rhetoric finds spin to be a 'factor': "Using analysis techniques first developed in the 1930s by the Institute for Propaganda Analysis, Conway, Grabe and Grieves found that O'Reilly employed six of the seven propaganda devices nearly 13 times each minute in his editorials. His editorials also are presented on his Web site and in his newspaper columns.

The seven propaganda devices include:

• Name calling -- giving something a bad label to make the audience reject it without examining the evidence;
• Glittering generalities -- the opposite of name calling;
• Card stacking -- the selective use of facts and half-truths;
• Bandwagon -- appeals to the desire, common to most of us, to follow the crowd;
• Plain folks -- an attempt to convince an audience that they, and their ideas, are 'of the people';
• Transfer -- carries over the authority, sanction and prestige of something we respect or dispute to something the speaker would want us to accept; and
• Testimonials -- involving a respected (or disrespected) person endorsing or rejecting an idea or person.

The same techniques were used during the late 1930s to study another prominent voice in a war-era, Father Charles Coughlin. His sermons evolved into a darker message of anti-Semitism and fascism, and he became a defender of Hitler and Mussolini. In this study, O'Reilly is a heavier and less-nuanced user of the propaganda devices than Coughlin."

tag: Hate Speech, Hate Radio, conservative radio, Authoritarianism, integrety. Bill O'Rielly, Fair and Balanced

Attention, Bill O'Rielly and Melanie Morgan

tag: Media matters, Hot Talk, hate speech, KSFO, Fox News, Melanie Morgan, Bill O'Rielly

Um, Bill? It's not that we can't have a conversation with you..

You usefully point out that you can't carry on conversations with computer geeks. Indeed there has been speculation about whether the ability to focus so valuable for technology jobs correlates with Asperger's Syndrome, a light form of autism. Nice job, making fun of people who aren't the social butterfly that you are.

Who's she talking at? Why, none other than our amazingly idiotic Bill O'Rielly, who has said this - and in public, no less!

I don’t own an iPod. I would never wear an iPod… If this is your primary focus in life - the machines… it’s going to have a staggeringly negative effect, all of this, for America… did you ever talk to these computer geeks? I mean, can you carry on a conversation with them? …I really fear for the United States because, believe me, the jihadists? They’re not playing the video games. They’re killing real people over there.

-Bill O'Reilly

I wonder if he's capable of realizing the true irony of a radio host and frequent TV personality talking about how hard it is to talk to "these computer geeks." Yeah. Geeks like Marconi, Edison and Bell.

Of course, I find it hard to talk to someone so stupid as to speak in such a way as to suggest that it would be better for us geeks to be "killing real people" instead of playing video games.

So, Bill, the reality is this; the geeks that make it possible for you to bloviate on the air likely can't be bothered to have a conversation with you, but aren't quite aspie enough to just tell you that.

Of course, if you do find this posted somewhere at Fox, don't bother checking the printout for fingerprints. There won't be any. And the video surveillance will clearly show it was Albert Einstein who tacked up the note.