Archive | Bill O’Reilly RSS feed for this section

We Need More Regulation – the FaceBook Addiction Crisis

29 Aug
Facebook Addiction Disorder — The 6 Symptoms of F.A.D.

Dr. Keith Ablow, the bald butch daddy psychiatrist FOX contributor often called in an The O’Reilly Factor to dispense advice about personal responsibility has one area where he thinks you can’t be allowed to take care of yourself – FaceBook.  He’s calling for FaceBook to have mandatory labeling to warn users that it can be addictive.

Since anything can be addictive, it’s difficult to view conservatives fads and fears about how something “new” is dangerous (birth control, rock music, social media) as anything other than an expression of their own psychological obsessions.  And it’s easy to see how the governmental nose they propose to stick under the tent will be abused (limiting and controlling  social media, from blogs to twitter, is something governments from Tehran to Cairo to DC would love to be able to do).  Ablow’s argument is shaky, with premises like an assumption that when people use FaceBook to build lists and networks (e.g. of tea party or antiwar activists, potential customers, alumni, neighbors,  etc.) they actually think these are “friends.”

But that aside, its not even original.  Ablow is just regurgitating a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode from over two decades ago.

Anthony Weiner: Vote for me and I will set it free!

25 Jul promises to release more on #Weinergate today.

Meanwhile the media seems to be paying scant attention to the fact that New York’s can choose to forgo dirty Weiner and instead vote for a clean Sanchez, Michael Sanchez, the Libertarian candidate.

“Fair and balanced” Bill O’Reilly went into the all spin zone last night, posting a graphic with six mayoral candidates including several GOP candidates who have absolutely no chance of being elected, but managed to censor out Libertarian Sanchez.  O’Reilly’s next NYT best seller is called Killing Journalism.  No word yet on whether Bernie Golberg will write an intro.

Gay marriage shows us how stupid everyone can be

10 Apr
From left to right, stupid people are writing stupid things about gay marriage, and smart and decent people are writing lame things about gay marriage.  It’s kind of pathetic.

At the gay blog Good As You, someone named Jeremy writes about the possibly decent but irrelevant gay tea party activist Doug Mainwaring, who opposes gay marriage, and the largely irrelevant National Organization for Marriage, mainly so he can claim they are the vanguard of tea party activism and prove that all advocates of small government are fascists, so we should support Obama fascism instead, which at least allows us to abort fetuses and felch our boyfriends while it racks up 17 trillion in debt and drones little brown kids around the world.  What can one say?  Gay Democrats and leftovers are troglodytes who are too stupid to live.  Good thing so few of them will breed.  Meanwhile leftover editorial cartoonist Ted Rall argues that the gay marriage campaign is a Right wing conspiracy.

Then cute new dad Matt Lewis and the sagacious Jim Antle  both produce pieces in which they sadly discuss the social conservatives’ political loss on the gay marriage issue as if they were defending some principle, as opposed to mere prejudice.

Social conservatives really are, at root, as O’Reilly observed this week, theocrats. They could not give an argument for excluding same sex couples from marriage that did not appeal to God. All the other arguments fail, since some gay people procreate and raise kids, and some heterosexuals do not.

As a result all attempts to legislate heterosexuals-only marriage amounted to denying not only freedom of association, but to denying freedom of religion and establishing a state church (as conservative lesbian blogger Cynthia Yockey first observed) in that all marriage would be by legal definition only those between men and women, as the approved churches ordained.  (And same sex marriages performed by gay or gay friendly synagogues or churches would not receive a stamp of state approval as they would in the state recognized and established churches.)

Gay marriage has existed for decades if not centuries. Gay people in passionate and committed relationships have always considered themselves to be married, and so have some of their friends and relatives. In some cases women or men cross dressed and assumed the other gender to make their marriages legal. That state established churches and government courts defined their marriages not to be marriages is irrelevant. Why not just argue that having churches be separate from the government is unprecedented in human history (prior to 1776) and so must not be allowed, since it is legislating from the bench, judicial activism, and radical social engineering?

A heterosexual libertarian friend who builds websites for major tea party groups asked me this month what I, as a (single) gay tea party/libertarian activist made of all this. I said I think many issues are more important, like debt, taxes, war, and currency debasement, and I don’t think all opponents of gay marriage are evil, as opposed to just wrong. But it is hard for me to respect you, given your intellectual lameness. Sadly these articles, and the attempt to discuss the issue as a tactical issue about compromising is also lame, lamer than Lewis usually is. I don’t think you’ve identified what principle is being compromised. Both the right to marry someone you love who happens to have the same genitals, and the right to defend yourself, flow from the same principle, that of the individual’s right to own her or his own life and body.  It doesn’t matter that you always used the word marriage to refer to heterosexual couplings, or that men and women are different, or that ideally children should have at least two parents, at least one of each gender, or that gay coupledom is “inferior” in that it does not, currently, allow for someone to produce offspring who are the genetic union of two people in love.  Gays, and sometimes their friends and relatives, have long used the word marriage to refer to their more committed and passionate unions, no matter how you get the State to define words.  As with the economy, you just need to get the hell out of the way.