AUNTENNA

130901 2207 AUNTENNA

Here we consider what comes over the antenna media, considered as a family member.

180901 1942 BBC World tv is often inaccurate. (e g, recently, Macedonia, a soldier killed by a cement block dropped unto his car from a bridge, we are later told: he was killed by a rock thrown through his window.

Wednesday, July 2, 2003
THE FOLLOWING IS RECOMMENDED TO THOSE INTERESTED IN THE SECTION "AUNTENNA" (6) --- ELF: Saturday, June 14, 2003 7:30 pm In my section "CULTURE BEARER" (18) I dissect a foul article about Charles Munch, and rumor-mongering based on that article. ( It is in that section that you will get my opinions about the article by Jeffrey Mehlman which appeared some months ago in the magazine "Salmagundi" put out by Skidmore College, and available via Skidmore (not web) --- also, I comment on the stupid essay by David Weininger (based on that article and comments in the Boston Globe newspaper) which appeared on WBUR and NPR and associated websites.)
Elf (for the ambassador)

And BBC Prime tv is mediocre. and sometimes perverse. caveat.

2016 And they promote grusomeness so as to sell newspapers --- "Do you think they are going to throw themselves overboard?"

2017 And slyly tendentious, as promoting London´s way by insulting Spait as "failed businessman", because London dumped the Indians onto Fiji long ago, the bastards.

061001 2148 "Euro-News" tv is frequently juvenile: as saying Sept 11 brought the superpower to its knees. gimme a break.

071001 1440 Public opinion is entirely the creature of the media, and the media is entirely the creature of the establishment. By definition, I do not mean in that, the opinions of the elite (by my definition) --- the elite do not subscribe to public opinion and are not creatures of the media; nor are they creatures of the establishment. "To be a man is to be a non-conformist"(Emerson), and to be an elite is to be an outsider, and outsiders must survive by Macchiavellian methods, especially in childhood.

14. oktober 2001 15:02 Recently Fox tv has become available here in Oslo, doubtless to afflict Norwegians (most of whom understand American) and others who understand American, with the propaganda desired by its evil owners. Typical of the Fox presenters is Linda Vester, who appeals to the true-bitch element, e g, by suddenly changing the subject while pretending not to notice and claiming to be relevant : a few days ago in a discussion as to sanctions on Iraq, she interjected "but Saddam used chemical weapons on his own people" ; and asked if she knew when, she hesitatingly said during the Gulf War (which is wrong). Anyway her facial constant expression is gorgon.

1513 What is it that bothers folks, is it the suicide bombers, or what they did? I am not horrified by suicidal jerks. Suicidal bombers are merely another weapon. Of course it is fun to consider their etiology, but that has nothing to do with the effects. And it is counter-productive racism to be baffled by the notion that one could do such a thing and that of course WE do not behave like that --- nonsense. Yes, some cultures encourage such nuttiness for its own sake, but Western history is replete with hero-martyrs and not only in war; cf the movie "Twelve O´Clock High" --- and I figure that suicide bombing is easier than what a normal person has to contend with in RISKING his/her life especially when the odds of surviving are bad.

But consider the scope of our imagining of threat: e g, at an airport, waiting to be checked thru security system, we all are sitting ducks, and the longer the line the worse --- Palestinian suicidals are glad to take out only a few victims. There is nothing to prevent one of them from blowing up those waiting before confronting the security system. Am I the only one to think of that? --- it seems to me that we like to deny danger and to behave like sheep, whether as victims of Fox News or terrorists or NRA or bad law generally. Defensive insight is our own best weapon for protection of each individual, and a life saved is a life earned, to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin --- when our supposed friends in the establishment get the idea that we are less sheeplike, maybe they will be forced to behave reasonably; but they have to be convinced that there is an agenda for safety (including just normal safety, like preventing Cessnas from hitting jumbo-jets, even when the culprit is not a terrorist). I hope we are at the beginning of the century of responsibility, including design of systems and practices to prevent what is deceptively called "human error" --- every "human error" is a system failure. Intelligence (including imagination) is how we survive threat. By the way, not only in WW2 (Admiral King´s incompetence in early 1942), but also in Korean War, our own incompetence killed far more than several thousand Americans (MacArthur going north). I wonder how actually being on the receiving end of bombing will change Americans´ attitudes toward dropping bombs --- I hope we would not hesitate to do another brilliant Kosovo war due to squeamishness.

onsdag 17. oktober 2001 18:18 Currently media discussing problem of using reference to "God" in schools for children --- but seem to miss the point that what may be permitted in adult situations cannot be allowed v v children; the public schools are entrusted with the care and education of the children of all and sundry : the historic issue is the inescapable conflict between family authority and the authority of the state. Generational territoriality is the battleground --- the school must respect the territorial limits of the prerogatives of the family when the USA Constitution demands separation of church and state; note that this matter has over the decades been blurred anyway, so we must be particularly diligent to avoid skidding into the abyss of sectarian hate due to invasions into territory held sacrosanct by the various groups of patriots trying to love USA due to its respect for the proper territories of the citizen.

19:04 With all the current talk of Islam as the religion of peace, I am wondering about what I have been reading recently in "The Arabian Nights"--- story upon story after story mostly about the just killing of hordes of unbelievers for the triumph of Islam ("The One True Faith") ; explanation?!

21. oktober 2001 18:58 On Fox news tv, O´Reilly sounds (acts) like somebody´s rude relative who changes the subject and doesn´t let folks finish answering anyway, (like my own insufferable relatives, including my former wife). So why watch him? Of course because like the standard psychopath (the Norwegian definition)(Norway has its own definitions)(that´s why they protect Norwegian psychology from outside influences by refusing to get professors enuf to build up the profession, such as it is, in Norway)(a scandal of squalor) O´´Reilly alternates with pleasant congeniality and assumed reasonableness (especially when the guest and he are on the same side). And of course one cannot consistently disagree with him --- he gets some guests who are true jerks, as patsies --- but after all so many nice folks are jerks anyway (and menaces). But his rudeness really turns me off.

onsdag 24. oktober 2001 20:34 Why is it that we have a pattern of rude tv journalist celebrities with Scotch/Irish names? Not only O´Reilly, but also Hannity and that old guy on NBC with his own show I have long avoided (McLaughlin?). Is it to appeal to a certain type of political viewer associated with mindless vituperative strident bellicosity commonly confused with patriotism? --- the sort who couldn´t reject their own bestial parents? --- the sort who vote Republican? (I enjoy my own partisanship)

Today O´Reilly denied being arrogant, offering that he gives others a chance to express themselves --- but that is precisely what he (and Hannity) do not. It is simply dishonest (and seen by millions) to say you will have 45 seconds after i finish, and then cut one off in about fifteen. or interrupt.

onsdag 7. november 2001 01:27 Why are the weather ladies on BBC World always twits?!

03:36 I suppose John Simpson, a chief BBC reporter, is good, but he is so personally disgusting. But the guy who does the “Hardtalk” series is disgusting only.

04:20 Jane Hall, of American University, on Fox News (evidently a regular panel member) --- a few days ago said something appalling: “Well I resent separating us from the American People --- I consider myself part of the American people, and also a journalist. “ A journalist who fails to comprehend that she is manifestly apart from the rest of us is insane. The media constitute a form of art: when information (using that word loosely) is offered in media, it is FRAMED (wrapped) --- a fact becomes interpreted by the very fact that it is presented or even mentioned or referred to in the media. There is the frame of length of time, of tone of voice, of choice of words, of frequency of mentioning, etc etc etc etc etc. And of course Fox news is one of the very most tendentious outlets of all.

The worst is the arrogance of the salesman pretending to be the potential customer. And the hubris (something beyond arrogance) of making a unity of the journalist and the citizen --- as if she is an elected official representing us, instead of a paid professional representing the special interest of her employer. Indeed, I am in the same boat with her when we are individual citizens thinking privately on our own --- but I do not pretend to be a part of a unity of the American people; I represent myself. The multitude of the American people do not pretend to speak for the American People. Only journalists do that. (Politicians fight their corner.) You might want to refer to Merriam under “journalism”. Or any social scientist concerned (in both senses of that word)(with and about). or any college student: a basic tenet of modern higher education is that no journalist can be trusted to be candid. Of course, no person can be trusted to be honest. But when you are “in the media” you have influence --- and that absolutely separates you from the rest of us. Enuf for now.

torsdag 8. november 2001 23:01 O´REILLY (Fox News), who sometimes is quite reasonable, really went off the deep end yesterday (day before), saying police should just rub out guys supporting terrorists --- no trial. I am reminded of little old ladies when Khomeini took over in Iran saying (in USA) let´s have that kind of law here, to get rid of criminals. The USA justice system is based on certain principles known to every intelligent high-school (grades nine-twelve) student: including separation of powers of cops from judges, and openness of justice system. I suppose O´Reilly would not approve death squads in Latin America (but maybe he would!), since that would be visible to his fixed focus eyes. This sort of thing is precisely what makes Fox News a menace. Too bad --- all that talent going to waste.

131101 2058 On the news I see where some are saying Usurper would have won anyway, even if U S Supreme Court had gone against him re Florida. But that is still pathetic, and he is still Usurper --- and the situation with regard to USSC is still menacing to USA democracy. Let us imagine a loving married couple and they want to have sexual intercourse; now add a bunch of the boys, pals of the man --- they set it up so that it amounts to rape. You get the idea. They ruin the whole thing. Furthermore, institutional changes are desperately needed to protect us in future from such a mess which could well and truly be catastrophic. I have been and will continue to be discussing this.

tirsdag 13. november 2001 23:18 Fox News disappeared last Thursday until last night, when , maybe because of the plane crash it returned. Anyway, Brit Hume raised the question which was not satisfactorily answered by the two experts, why are we letting Taliban flee Kabul? But it is an ancient principle, put forth by Xenophon, re the Persian Wars, that it is often better to let the enemy go home, rather than be cornered. Why would we want to confront Taliban and force them to regret leaving Kabul? etc. Anyway, the more solidly they gather at Kandahar, the better they become target.

søndag 18. november 2001 07:21 A couple citations from a few days after Sept 11: Euronews tv 23:00 September 14th: “Panic grips the nation as more cases of anthrax are reported in the United States.” BBC tv an hour later: “...victims of anthrax... one of them has already died” --- . Obviously selling newspapers in a very disgusting way. Besides taking advantage of opportunity to make USA look bad, by distorted presentation.

09:39 Too often the media operates like wolf packs chasing the proverbial Russian troika across the steps of central asia --- the passengers throw babies out to stall them. Government similarly.

mandag 19. november 2001 02:14 Just this moment BBC tv news has this hyer cow reporter insisting that bin Laden´s second in command was tracked down by U S forces --- altho there is no reason for her to say that, especially as it was denied in press conference by Rumsfeld (it just happened); she (BBC) merely is making a false meal out of chasing bin Laden --- maybe she was the only ass willing to go on air to say that, so they had to use her, in spite of her ghastly appearance. But BBC is certainly the outlet for females drab and silly. Altho their male weather people look and act normal, every one of their female weather people is a freak.

lørdag 24. november 2001 22:40 Fox News is really dangerous, what with its proto fascist anti-democracy anti due-process behavior --- of course it mixes all up in a lethal stew including good nourishment ; it is the voice of the lowest of the low (e g the current Attorney General, and Trent Lott, who are obviously not as stupid as they pretend to be --- they know that one is not guilty unless so proven: they know that a trial is not supposed to be a charade merely, or a sop to the relatives of the victimly accused; it is dammit a seeking for the truth). But of course, I am not one of the accursed fools who go so far as (on CNN the public´s opinions on Blitzer´s excellent show) to call in and actually say that they (or as least one such moron) TRUST the government!!!!!!!!!!! It is obvious that the evil people in the Usurper administration want to exploit the current situation to turn USA away from due process and into the path of Mussolini. No wonder Putin gets along so well with Usurper!!!!!

101201 Fox News etc. re: Conservative? About Time Magazine Person of the Year: not bin Laden, this due to distinction btwn news and alarm- news, i e, the distinction between news about others v v news about attack upon us. I doubt Time had in 1941 either Yamamoto or Tojo. Anyway, for me the Person of the Year is the forlorn faithful lady waving a cloth from a very high window, hoping to be rescued but tower collapsed. For me she symbolizes the many betrayed by the system in so many ways, and a warning to the rest of us --- she died for our folly. She is the most poignant image, alongside the leapers.

BBC World News tv yesterday had an unspeakable wretch on their program called Dateline London whose first name is Edward, but due to their failure to repeat his full name and origin I do not know --- anyway his opinions were unrelievedly disgusting and smug, to the degree that I understand why some get carried away and opt for civil war so as to have the opportunity to hopefully blow his head off. Just imagine positions consistently apathetic and passive. He gave point as a laboratory specimen to the current discussion about what is conservative. (I guess he would wrongly call himself Left.) I myself support measures for social equality and escape from the tyranny of the dollar. But in international politics I am an independent thinker and consider myself a realist. I have my own hopeful agenda, including matters ecological, especially saving the great apes and other important endangered species; and birth-control. And as to matters of law and justice, I am an acute thinker aware of subtleties I hope to explain to others. So, what is a Conservative?

I suggest that the word conservative (without capital c) is inadequate to describe reality in politics in our era. I suggest a new geometry of symbol, including vertical as well as horizontal coordinates; as a solid geometry of political designation. This should coordinate also with distinctions as to the particular sphere of reference of each coordinate. Of course, some will find this too complex. But actuality disregards the limitations of perception, and political survival depends on the attempt to discriminate with sufficient subtlety. Indeed, the level of discourse encountered today on popular tv, including Fox News, is far beyond what would have been acceptable in the days when Adlai Stevenson was called “Egghead”.

Altho Gingrich is not quite bright enuf, he does allow a certain opening into the realm of intellect --- the notorious mythical “Redneck” conservative, generally presumed to be anti-intellectual, is confronted by a Republican with an attitude of congeniality to the attempt to think and to communicate thinking.

Similarly, but in a different game, we have also on Fox News the wildman OReilly (I am avoiding apostrophes because I am not sure what the computer code will do with them). He said last week that he is not a conservative (is that with capital c?). I have been watching his show since Sept 11 or so (which is when the locals started broadcasting Fox) and see him as an excellent example of the conundrum, what is conservative? Of course he does get too often vituperative, going on like someone´s angry mother, and that is quite annoying, as has been complained of by several --- but, and altho he is often also quite absurd in his positions (e g, failing to distinguish between the accused and the convicted (a failing he shares with many mavins)), he is often brilliantly correct --- by which I of course mean that he agrees with me and brings up points even I had not thought of.

In the meantime, the notion “Liberal” is certainly as vexed as is “Conservative”. To give you some way out perspective, here in Norway "Liberal" refers to British Liberalism of the 19th Century, associated with John Stuart Mill and Harriet Mill, and includes the notion that one should have only so many children as one can afford . The Scandinavian parameters are quite different from the American (Liberal is not considered to be Left). But what does Liberal really mean in USA?! Of course Ronald Reagan used it as an insult (“Massachusetts Liberal”). In that sense, we get a polar war in which, instead of fruitful discussion, we get a choosing up of sides. This silly adolescent behavior is typical of the loathsome Fred Barnes (a pundit on Fox News). But what are we to call the committed passives --- the rationalizers of opposition to the war against The Taliban? Perhaps they could be called the Committed Passives. But a problem we truly need to be aware of is the discrediting of any sort of action by Washington internationally due to scandal erupting out of bad policy, such as USA in Guatemala and Chile --- it is silly to call Liberal or Leftist all who want USA to behave morally on the world stage. And it is naive to the point of Redneckism to say my country right or wrong. We see that it does not work over the decades in our democracy to cheat morally and then try to mobilize support for needed defense internationally. USA has over the many years allowed itself to be the instrument of some very bad special interests abroad (not to mention at home). It simply will not wash , to say, oh that was not us it was Ike a long time ago. But neither is it jingoism to appropriately wave the flag. I am wary of Fox News when it continually shows us Usurper wrapping himself in the flag (whatever claims Bush may have to being President were destroyed by the collapse of the U S Supreme Court in the election)(He is irrelevant to the war effort, which may as well be run by James Baker). But I am also wary when I get the news from BBC --- bias is omnipresent, and the worst is the appearance of sheep. Of course, we elite smugly hope that the ignorant will not be fooled by the hyp, while we know better, and can enjoy the antics of charlatans. Indeed, I revel in the diarrhea of the Attorney General, revealing his fascist tendencies. It is like a chess game of complexities in which are caught the no-face whiter-than-thou types; or what Poe said, as to continually being in the public eye and eventually getting seen thru. May I digress, to give kudos to Fox News for something I wonder if folks notice: the presenting of female people as hosts --- i e, not as politically correct neuters, but as attractive women (not that it is only Fox that does so); a point generally lost among those defending the rights of women is the age-old conflict among females as to the matter of competition in pulchritude: the rights of the women seen as attractive must be protected v v the basic rights of all women. The same hideous impulse that results in what is euphemistically called “female circumcision” gives us too often presenters on tv news purposely made anti-sexy, this on the basis of a pretense to seriousness, vs the frivolity with which are generally stigmatized the pretty. So it is a satisfaction of reasonableness, to see women on Fox News who would , if only seen and not heard, be assumed to be air-heads, speaking brilliantly (altho their political tendencies are not always my own). Of course, the popularity of Fox News is not hindered by its sexiness. Is sexiness jingoism? Is strong presentation bias? Is snappy dialogue deceit? But certain policies, repeatedly espoused, and certain vocabulary constantly used, and certain attitudes of gesture and tone characteristic of certain presenters and certain guests, do reveal a tendency I, as a Democrat, hope the voting public regards sceptically, to say the least. I indulge myself by praising Fox News even more, in spite of my regarding it sort of like a pet leopard to be enjoyed cautiously: At least here in Oslo, Fox News relegates sports news to the news-crawl (the text running at the bottom of the screen) (and I hope Fox is not dissuaded by the silly opponents who cannot ...)(that crawl saves Fox from anti-factuality)(ah, yes, O´Reilly has a non-collegiate bind as to what "fact" is) and we do not get weather reports, nor sink we into the mire ( as does Larry King) of Hollywood biographies and other human interest crap (except as relates to major events). I mention that I tape the several hours Fox runs here, and so avoid the truly maddening noise substituting for absent ads, and of course edit out what I really do not want to watch. I cannot understand why Fox uses the notorious Oliver North. I am sure I will later on have more brilliant remarks along these lines, but so long for now. 19:09

161201 1917 HANNITY is a host on Fox News tv who defends the troglodyte position about anything and everything. According to Merriam Webster Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary troglodyte means : a member of a primitive people dwelling in caves, or a person resembling a troglodyte (as in reclusive habits or outmoded or reactionary attitudes). I do not say Foxnews is merely Conservative anyway. I am wondering what is the bottom line for the notorious owner (Murdoc?). But superior minds like me must remember that most Americans are not as bright as we are, nor will they ever be --- the banner on the entrance to the Daily News building in New York City is: "God must have loved the common man, He made so many of them". We cannot assume that people who talk like Carl Sandburg are going to win elections. As there has developed a wide gap between those with money and those with poverty, so has a gap developed between those whose minds have been developed and those who whatever their native intelligence, lack cultivation --- and everyone can vote. Remembering that in my own definition Democracy is the contest between group one and group two for domination of group three, by ballot instead of sword, consider that the game is played by skill and not by sincerity. One´s basic motives may be sincere, but that does not win ballgames. So we have to see people like Hannity as PERFORMERS: the actual person Hannity may or may not be the same as the buffoon we, you and I, see on tv --- he is cast in a role by the people writing the script for the owner, Marmadook. Of course, the owner might want to fail to convince people as we seem to see him trying to do --- he might want to create a backlash against troglodytism, by gradually bringing the lower elements up to a level of understanding where they blow up against the politics of the troglodytes. Not likely, however. In the meantime, remember that famous dictum from Cardinal Newman, that the goal of university education is to raise the level of society (maybe not verbatim, and maybe not university). And Edward Bok, who founded The Ladies Home Journal magazine had a similar notion. Read his book, The Americanization of Edward Bok. Note that while Fox News host OReilly is manifestly brilliant, Hannity comes on as a stupid version of OReilly --- thus covering both ends of that spectrum in appealing to various parts of the audience of ancient roman circus goers; I emphasize that i myself enjoy Fox News, except when it gets too nauseating or about half the time.

An example is a few days ago when on the show called Hannity and Colmes a guest was an atheist who objected to kids being forced to say the pledge of allegiance to the flag including reference to God --- but Hannity diverted the brief discussion to trying to confront the guest about atheism itself. One at first considers Hannity to be a jerk, but then with a bit of thought one considers that the bosses do not want to offend viewers by having atheist on without challenging him. Voila.

191201 1724 re OReilly and Cal Thomas --- I COULD PUT THIS STUFF in my section “Idiotism”, as these two guys are not actually stupid, they just act stupid in various controversial ways so as to sell newspapers, I guess (after all, Orlie has a Harvard Diploma, even as some of those fiends residing at Berkeley) . But still, when Cal Thomas comes on like some troglodyte edition of a father, my contempt is aroused, for the type of asshole he represents. He is a symbol of what I have always rejected as bad . And when he makes a point of PROMOTING bad, I call that SYSTEMATIC- POLICY- bad, which I call EVIL --- (see my section “Evil”). In judging intellect I use the best one achieves, but in judging morally I use the worst. Anyway, he has been joined by Oreilly in calling Berkeley (the town, and its Marin County generally) anti-American. That is too irresponsible. I remember The House Un-American Activities Committee, do you? Check it out, lest the young by unawareness get sacked by the bad people in America, yet again. I suppose after Iraq, the next target of our campaign vs terrorism will be Berkeley. And of course, Norway, which harbors a Crown Prince who recently graduated University of California at Berkeley (doubtless brought up wrong by the Norwegian Royal Family). By the way, if Orily doesnt like it in USA, we doesnt he go back to Singapore, where (he seems to be saying) he did his graduate work? (ONE HAS TO WONDER ABOUT THE AMERICANISM OF A HENCHMAN OF SINGAPORE ---?!) I guess my definition of American is different from that of OrilY or Thomas (would that be Calvin Thomas? --- named after TWO saints (or whatever they were)? Or is it actually California Thomas, --- hey, maybe he wants to make sure we do not think THAT!.....). Anyway, the difference between Thomas and Orely is, that the latter is not ugly facially. Ah, may i mention, however, that my reason for not calling the Berkeley City Council types Anti-American is the same as why i do not call (except in jest) Republicans Anti-American (except some of them, e g, Oliver North) --- not that I am not contemptuous of their minds in the area of international politics (e g, see my section “John the Parrot”, most recent entry before today)(and my section “Window of Opportunity”). Actually i look upon Thomas and Oreally as porn stars to be gloated at. I assume when election times come around, the madmen (and madwomen, e g, Linda Vester)(sometimes she is reasonable, and I find that if I do not look at her juvenile-delinquent squint I can tolerate her) on Fox news will be patted patronizingly on the head while responsible voters outnumber the feebleminded (yes, Orally, I indeed consider anyone weakminded, who is taken in by your garbage (garbage as opposed to when I agree with you)(you are right to put down the eunuch Cofi Anan)). But at least on Fox News the nuttiness is up-front, unlike on BBC which sneaks crooked stuff in, as calling anti-globalization people anti-capitalist. And of course in order to be an insulted guest on e g, Orly, one has to actually be a guest, which ipso facto gives one publicity. Ask not if Fox News is Conservative, ask what Fox News can do for you. But I nod sympathetically to the Irish-American writing in to say that Oreilly embarrasses Irish-Americans: I guess Binladn gets the same sort of mail --- thank The Great Whiz-Bang in the Sky that Binladn and oRilly both behave like self-contradictory psychopaths, lest too many take them seriously. I like the similarity that in effect they both know the truth (that Fox News is indeed Conservative)(and that Binladen really did it), but, like any guilty joker, figure it cannot be proven. A recent gem is Oreally plumping for trickle-down, on the basis that the less well off do not buy expensive items (like BMW cars?) even when they get some money (of course, that they buy (often domestically made) necessities does not interest our non-Conservative populist hero, wot?). In passing, I offer my heart-felt praise to one of the Fox News Lots (as the Lot of The Bible, who was one good man), Steve Harrigan, for getting that interview with the new Afghani leader and sticking up to Orlyi for the human beings who are weaker than Orlly (who emphasized that in his career as journalist he had escaped the tramels of life in some of Earth´s hell-pits, unlike the poor benighted sots who foolishly grew up in places like Guatemala instead of Harvard or Singapore). See, I also do say that people have to learn to take responsibility for their governments, when possible; but we must help --- and I assume they are grateful as a nation, even at the cost of collateral deaths and maimings --- e g, Kosovo, and Afghanistan. Of course the Bush family cynicism evident in Pappa Bush callously exploiting the rebelliousness of Sadaam´s thrals only to hang them out to dry, must be as galling to OReilly as to myself. USA must fulfill its responsibility instead of being timid (or, to quote Usurper, “humble”). One thing Fox News does for USA and the world, is support a military class morale --- but that should not be attempted at the cost of accusations of anti-Americanism in the mass of isolationists whether of the right or left. It is an ancient problem; cf Xenophon as well as Clausewitz. By the way, what is the Afghan war, etc., costing? But of course, military expenditure helps drive the economy, wot. May i also mention that the media manipulates even the exalted American people, as the amazing lie put forth in Newsweek at end of Gulf War that it was stopped due to the horror of that road out of kuwait!!!!! In the meantime, Pappa bush actually could have told the then coalition that Sadaam must go, and he could have got away with it, but USA did not want Sadaam gone then, lest we have to run Iraq, or Iran seize an opportunity; but we also wanted to play with Sadaam as exercise in meta-sovereignty diplomacy.

1757 re: Buchanan Buchanan (may his name be ever blessed for doing so much for the 1992 election of Clinton) has a new book he is promoting and it seems to be saying that Western Society is under serious attack by ISLAM!!!!! Actually, I am too lazy to write a book showing that Western Society is under catastrophic attack by Western Society. See, that is what happens when society gets sick --- it attracts charlatans and quacks like Buchanan with nostrums sure to prevent recuperation. Of course, some parts of our culture have succombed to the blandishments of pseudo-feminist demagogues at least as destructive as the perverse Buchanan types --- it is like the buffaloes in the Poe story “The Journal of Julius Rodman”, in the part called “May 3”, which die by plowing futilely at either side of the river, instead of going with the flow: the reasonable middle way would have been (would be) for females to not abandon their necessary survival purpose as mothers, while also advancing their out-of-home careers (as indeed many females are sadly too late tragically discovering). Anyway, I could list lots of Western World types I fear far more than any Muslims, including The Vatican (still as ever the enemy of the human mind). It was not Moslems who scuttled The U S Supreme Court in the 2000 Presidential Election --- and, by the way, what steps are even now being taken to prevent that from recurring? Or is it the same attitude that made us sitting ducks Sept 11, oh it wouldn´t happen again. Hey, the date should have been predicted as a target for terrorists, who would want to signal their activities by the coincidence 911 (the emergency fone number throughout USA)(not elsewhere)(and the date written that way, not 11-9, as in Europe). But I hear that Arabs and Moslems are planning to really destroy our entire economy and science by suddenly preventing us from using their numbers at all!

231201 17:48 About NBC having ads for hard liquor: here in Oslo we get ads on Discovery tv forJohnnie Walker which are bad --- they present a couple of minutes of inspirational human interest biography of perseverence, capped with their logo and the slogan, “Keep on walking”. As if to say keep drinking, do not stop. Another booze also advertises on Discovery tv too. And here in Norway such ads are illegal, but of course the Norwegians do nothing about it (this in a country where porn is blocked out by grids)(maybe the younger generation is being programmed to associate sex with sexy noises accompanied by grids). The bad part especially is that there are those who are alcoholic --- it is offensive to me (not alcoholic) to see ads which boorishly and dangerously ignore that fact. There is a fundamental difference between ads in paper media (magazines etc) and ads on tv: one purchases a magazine and looks at it, and controls the time spent on any particular page --- but tv aggressively enters the home once let thru the door and attacks one with ads presented in a calculated sequentiality and length of time, while the ads themselves are vastly more powerful than a page in a magazine. As to when they are presented: to say only after kiddies bedtime is cynical: kids hear ads from the bedroom (but this overhearing is a vexed question generally, which I will be discussing), and people tape and watch at their own time (altho often then cutting the ads) --- but of course better at midnight than at noon (but what about time zones?). For NBC to require four months of public service ads to warn folks of the dangers of alcohol is an insult to my intelligence which I would love to refer to Michael Corlione: The vast vast vast majority will be watching subsequently and NBC knows that; also, the presenting of such caveats has the well known macchiavellian effect of putting the audience of prospective saps at ease, indeed, to the point that afterward Daddy will say it is alright for Junior to watch the ads since they are RESPONSIBLE, and he guesses alcohol is not after all the work of the devil. The entire cultural problem applies: what if Massachusetts forbids such ads? Scandinavia has lotteries and one-arm-bandits everywhere and hardly limitted at all, but I do not know of any casinoes. And lottery betting is not only allowed to be advertised on TV and everywhere, it is aggressively promoted by the national tv and presented as child-friendly. But here are no bookies like in Britain, to bet on elections and whatever. And, as I mentioned, Norway stops porn on tv, but Sweden and Denmark do not. Velly innalessing. The trouble with USA is that indeed it IS the greatest nation on Earth, and accordingly a battlefield fought over by war-lords using (usually) pens instead of swords.

19:07 From what I gather, the Washington Post series is saying much along the same lines as myself --- that the American people (and Congress and media)(in spite of vicious lobbying by special interests) are much to blame for the chaos leading to Sept 11, in not supporting serious measures vs terrorism over the years; but i lay stress on the amazing refusal to build our defenses, let alone go after the baddies: indeed, to the degree that we could not catch the binLaden types, all the more we should have strengthened our homeland defenses. But of course that would have hurt the airline business, supposedly (as opposed to what we now have)(again the myopia of conscienceless venality). Simply, however, concentrating on what the enemy would likely attempt, would have done a lot: the big plane long hauls should have been defended, even if little planes etc were let pass without full metal jacket.

19:18 In judging folks morally, I use their worst, while in judging them as intellect, I use their best.

Auntenna mandag 24. desember 2001 21:29 : It is not nice for OReilly to praise our excellent military cam- paign in Afghanistan by saying we lost only five people --- not mentioning the losses of our allied Afghanies.

Whether or not OReilly admits Fox News is Conservative as a station, and while he says he himself is not a Conservative, he pointedly tells us he would not have been admitted to a lawn party at the Clinton White House. But of course he need not actually be a Conservative to have been rejected by Clinton. Being a boor might have sufficed.

OReilly complaining that he and Fox News were not given interview with Governor Pataki (sp?) of New York, about charity fiasco, came on as if he thinks of himself as some sort of commissar, one who is part of an organization on an equal footing with elected officials as to authority and rights. That impression is consistent with the “Fifth Estate” attitude held by many in journalism. When we blame the American People for deriliction of responsibility leading up to the events of September 11, 2001, a heavy burden rests upon the small quantity of people called generally “the media”. Along with lobbyists (lobbyists should be seriously regulated) the journalists interfere between the people at large and representative government. Journalists evaluate events as if they and their bosses were angels protecting the rest of us from politicians. Politicians are presented as defective wind-up toys, while journalists are human beings with wisdom and the will to tell us all how it really is. Journalists are the ones doing the writing of history now being lived, and/or recent. They however do not take responsibility for what they do in their monopolization of the sources of information collectively. No, it is left to the omniscient crowd, in its collective insight to protect the nation. So the media have power without responsibility. And the individual perfidy of influential columnists works like the typhoid of Typhoid Mary, which normally would go directly down a sanitized toilet. But all this is integral with the game called “Democracy”, in which group A and group B compete to manipulate group C. Let the voter beware. Of course, one does not expect the media to acknowledge that Monica enabled Clinton to divert the attention of one and all so he could present Kosovo as fait accompli, instead of allowing the morbid hubris of professional obfuscaters to muck it up, as it did Bosnia. Who the hell does OReilly think he is?!

By the way, who do we think Middle America is?! We are told constantly about those who reside west of some place, and that they think differently from people in Boston and Brooklyn. These people are seemingly not to be confused with those who reside south of the Mason-Dixon Line. Perhaps they do not sing like cows. Anyway, some of them would appear to be even more Liberal than the Massachusetts liberals vilified by Reagan, possibly because they are from Scandinavian stock (Scandinavia notoriously associated with political reasonableness). I suppose, tho, that they are more middle of the road than the notorious extreme westerners of Marin County --- who are so unutterably extreme as to be called Anti-American by the savants Oh Reilly and Cal Thomas. I myself, however, am not a savant, and am baffled by the notion Middle America. I do hope it does not mean that they are so far insulated from Europe and/or Asia (not to mention Mexico) that isolationism comes natural to them. And I hope they do not accept being considered the boondocks and not worth quality medical care. Or Beethoven.

And now for something completely different: Andy Rooey on Sixty Minutes on CBS is nauseating --- I am assuming he is still nauseating, as I have not attempted to keep my food down watching him after once or twice.

Also disgusting are those BBC reporters who are programmed to whine in a mawkish Irish-esque sadness so as to wring tears from folks I suppose imagined to be like the numbskulls who “read” the London newspaper “The Sun” --- it must be remembered that Brits are contemptuous of themselves and each other; too bad the old form of the American Language is linked to them.

Buchanan reminds me of George Wallace, in representing the properly disenranchised. He promotes conflict between The West (whatever that may be) and Islam --- but why? Are Moslems more dangerous than Vatican Catholics? Do they oppose population control? Do they massacre the Great Apes? Do they destroy the jungles and the ancient jungle peoples? Do they have a high degree of criminality, like Italo-Americans? Do they despise Afro-Americans? Do they say the economy of USA is more important than the ecology of the planet? I am for an ecumenical cooperation with Islam (in the sense that it be kept separate from government)(and note that there are plenty of Christians who want the government permeated by their religion). Non-Moslems have a lot to learn from Islam. This is especially so if one assumes a coming together of minds benefiting from all world culture. Smugness leading to xenophobia is truly the pride that goeth before a fall. It is only when we cling to our religions blindly without self-examination that we become defensive, since we do not know what we are doing --- so, let us analyze each other together: unless of course we are so benightedly fundamentalist that we are afraid to eat from the tree of knowledge. But do not listen to me, for I am atheist.

As to Person of the Year, if not the person vainly hoping to be rescued, then the people who crashed their plane onto Pennsylvania instead of denying what was happening. That was even greater than the famous martyred rescuers at The World Trade Center, for it was individual initiative undemanded.

------- ----------------------------

301201 1750 It is not to be tolerated that OReilly with glee and drooling call certain Americans (whom I myself call imbeciles) UnAmerican/AntiAmerican. This is the parting of the ways for us. Too bad. Such a bright boy, altho a tenth or so as bright as he thinks himself to be, the conceited pompous narcissistic ass. But it is odd that Sky news has 3 of its puppets, OReilly, Hannity and Thomas call people UN-American etc, when the owner is an Australian, by definition NOT American (and from a country infamous as visciously racist --- hardly of American values). So I am myself patriotically concerned about the destiny of USA, and am UN-OReilly, and am Anti-Fox News. But of course FoxNews wraps itself in our flag so as to have it appear that being against Foxnews is to be anti- American. And the Australian to be more American than the Americans. I want laws to stop and prevent such media takeover by foreigners. They have no sense of what it means to be American, and care less. They are real saboteurs. And those who are the puppets of the foreigner have quite a nerve to call others unamerican! but oreuilly is a low demagogue who will do anything irresponsible to make a buck or enhance his ego or image or power. Of course he caters to those of low intelligence and education; and breeding --- what a boor he is . Note his body language, his sensuously stretching his arms and hands to suggest something else long --- his hyperelegant shaping of words, even when playing harridan. He is a professional sophomore. Know it all. But of course we know not the true oreilly, merely the character, like richard III in Skakepeare. Making trouble by provoking calm folks to hot up to oppose oreillyism.

onsdag 9. januar 2002 20:47 311201 2302 entry for auntenna re fox news: One wonders what Oreilly, Hannity and Thomas mean by American, as opposed to "Un-American/Anti-American". Let's see what such notions may mean: in 1938 a German opposing Hitler would be a patriot, same as a Czech in 1960 opposing USSR, etc. Do the team of Fox News arbiters of patriotism equate American with loyalty to the current administration? I mean, I am not even accusing them of loyalty to this particular current administration; just any current administration would do --- the point is dogged subservience to whatever government is in powrer, considered as White House and Congress in the aggragate. In other words it seems they want subservience to whatever is decided by government per se. Of course, a normal healthy citizen judges the actions of the government, any government, as being the work of individual persons in positions of power, delegated to them as defined by Jefferson & Company. Unfortunately, in American history, our forefathers allowed Tories to return after the Revolutionary War, and we are saddled still with them, UnAmerican louts that they are. Whoops, excuse me, but after all I am merely one individual person spouting off on web. MY notion of what America IS cannot be identical to that of Oreilly, Hannity or Thomas. Actually I consider that they are media whores who would say anything to make a buck, and that is why Murdoch (a non-American Australian) cast them in his media-drama called FoxNews. I again emphasize that in my arrogant opinion the people they call UnAmerican etc, are jerks --- but to call them UnAmerican is unconscionable. During the Cold War they would have perhaps called them Commie Pinko Rat fellow traveler co-conspirators etc. How about let's have Oliver North do a rapportage on The House UnAmerican Activities Committee (not for the edification of Fox etc, (who know quite well what is at stake, besides Joan of Arc) but for the early adolescents at whom so much of Fox is addressed). By the way, wasn´t Oliver North a traitor worse than Johnnie (Taliban Toy) Walker?. 010102 0011 Happy New Year from Oslo!!!!!

Of course by accusing others of something, one graps the prerogative to actually BE bad oneself. There are indeed Americans who (in my arrogant estimation) don't get it when it comes to what being American means in a conceptual sense. Word too big for you? Are you of the persuasion that life can be simple in the sense of simple-minded? ( Or perhaps you are actually 11 years old. Fox News makes sure to include those who actually are quite young, not only those of immature mentality --- after all, in a few years the prepubert will be voters, and of course Murdoch wants them brainwashed his way.) America in the sense of American vs UnAmerican or AntiAmerican, is a concept: what IS America, as a concept? I will discuss that at length eventually, and it is a question all Americans should meditate. Of course demagogues like the Fox team do not want to get into that sort of question; they want solely to exploit the panic of people susceptible to an accusation they do not understand, and hysterically rushing to say "Not me!" That is part of the latent obscenity. I mean the sort of corruption Fox promotes is medieval and well known to all involved, to the point that one must ask what is the agenda of Murdoch (the Australian tycoon)(owner of Fox News) --- some actual Americans really want to destroy the America I myself care about, but here we have someone who is not even American; perhaps he really wants to destroy USA as a competitor of Australia (a nation based on exiled British criminals). (So you want to play extremism, eh?)

In politics we find the power version of what psychologists call "Projection" --- accuse your neighbor before he can accuse you; or if you “know” you yourself are UnAmerican, accuse someone else of it quick, especially one who will likely realize that you are yourself UnAmerican; that way maybe you can get him burned at the stake, and anyway no one will believe him, when and if he accuses you. So again accusing someone of being UnAmerican must arouse the suspicion of the wise who know what I just said. Hitler, trying to call the Germans the superior race, knew that the main race that could make that claim look silly was the Jews, so they had to go. When I hear the Fox team say UnAmerican/AntiAmerican, I know why they say it, and realize they are mad dogs up to no good. Can Fox fail to know that?

auntenna lørdag 12. januar 2002 21:07 Hannity affirms that he is an Irish Catholic, evidently unrepentant, unrenegade. When he asks (and he has on two occasions I saw) “Is USA the greatest nation on Earth?” he reveals himself to be several kinds of chump. The question is obscene, not only because it is insulting to nationals of other nations (and I watch Fox News in Norway), it insults the intelligence of the person he is asking, and it insults that person´s patriotism. Worse, it sounds like Hitler´s gestapo. And it is appercu (revealing) as to the mentality of the character called Hannity (I have no way of knowing if Hannity is sincere in his stupidity, or cast to play a role or both): this is particularly so as he added that USA is the greatest nation “God has ever given us”. He seems fixated in Catholic Parochial school, kissing the asses of the nuns and saying he is better behaved than any of the other little slaves. But I gather that this is merely an illusion; Fox News uses the character called Hannity to seduce a certain type of voter --- Hannity presents himself as a poor benighted Mick (ignorant irishman) so as to set up a pattern of identification and empathy in any and all people who imagine themselves mentally deprived. Hannity is rather like Uriah heep, “I am an `umble man”, while being devious. My highly intelligent friend here who is of a New York family of Irish Catholics long involved in politics, tells me that the vast majority of Irish Catholic Americans vote Democrat, and that the Republicans are always trying to seduce them. So Hannity sets up a “lager” sullenness, with Irish against the world, by his gosh true believerism. Of course us others are merely disgusted anyway --- but should not be fooled into loathing the generality of irish Catholic Americans, thus splitting Democrats. Again, it is silly to call Fox News “Conservative” --- it is well beyond such superficial categories. I wonder when Hannity is going to propose The Divine Right of Presidents. The authoritarianism of the question “USA greatest...” is in the very notion that somewhere there is a Great Judge (The Greatest Judge) bestowing championships. Of course this is indeed what Hannity´s pal Buchanan sets forth on Fox News discussing his current book, which he has the nerve to suggest that an interviewer should actually have redd (my new spelling). Buchanan frankly states his position that what he calls “The West” is better than what I guess he would call “The East”, and which is in Buchanan´s view encroaching on the entire prerogative and hegemony of “The West” and that is in Buchanan´s view too bad, as “The West” is better ... I imagine millions of new babies named Buchanan or Buchana, born to Anglo-Saxons and to those Buchanan deigns to include in “The West”. Actually, i resent him stealing my thunder: i myself want an army of fathers instituted immediately on an emergancy basis to counterbalance the lamentable tragedy that women are going past child-conceiving-bearing age childless and sadly waking up too late to get anything reasonably done about it. That constitutes a semi-holocaust of unborn kids, and Buchanan helps stability of USA by emphasizing a perspective that dwarfs the loss of 3000 on September 11, 2001. But maybe Buchanan will come around to allowing USA international aid money to go to countries which allow abortion (anyway, why not all other aid donors focus on compensating for that lack (e g, Japan)?

auntenna søndag 13. januar 2002 19:31 Caveat: Before, we saw anti-semitism meaning actually hatred of Jews --- now it has become hatred of Arabs; it is almost as if the Jews knew that to get out from under, they would have to get the other Semites to take the fall. But what goes around comes around, and the Jews could be setting themselves up for a new fall, while the antisemites are laughing all the way.

auntenna søndag 13. januar 2002 19:39 Buchanan´s attitude is counter-productive v v other cultures which USA would like to have open mind toward us; but Buchanan and his ilk are ignoramuses knowing, intentionally, nothing about the foreign: Buchanan makes a virtue out of the necessity of his own inability and ignorance by telling us and himself that he opposes what he is ignorant of. And if you think blondes are air-heads, wait until you see Sean Hannity, who isn´t even a woman at all. Hannity is the Alfred E Neumann of Fox News. Hannity reminds me of the carpenter while O`Reilly reminds me of the walrus. So questions like whom do you trust, are like the silly oysters --- Republicans tend to trust, whereas democrats are not so stupid as to trust, so Republicans and Fox News tend to win in polls like that.

Speaking of trust: what is the responsibility of Discovery tv, telling folks to stay in your rooms if fire in high-rise hotel, and get rescued by professionals --- some Discovery tv shows old repeats and wrong anyway? not mentioning if building melting?

onsdag 16. januar 2002 16:01 OReilly today/yesterday spoke with a leader in the Jewish-American community about former President Clinton, OReilly expressing amazement that the Jewish voters like Clinton so much, altho (in OReilly´s view) Clinton did little to defend Israel vs terror. This is so silly as to be pathological: I gather from remarks by e g OReilly himself that OReilly was a determined foe of Clinton --- and it seems to me that there is an ego problem here; OReilly seems to ranckle at Clinton´s intellect being superior even to OReilly´s own and Clinton even got to be President, which OReilly seems to want to do. Of course we need not comment on OReilly trying to sell Republicanism to Jews, and at the same time making the point that Jews tend to vote Democrat. All this sort of crap goes beyond any silly question of whether OReilly and/or Fox News is “Conservative” --- in the case of OReilly and Fox News, “Conservatism” is a euphemism: what is being perpetrated is insidious manipulation of political attitudes, while putting Fox News in position to be effective in crucial situations. OReilly himself loves to draw folks into the absurd question of whether or not he is Conservative --- it is as if he has a castle, and in front of it is a swamp called “Conservative”, and he sits back and invites jerks to battle him in that swamp and drown. But he serves the constructive purpose of exposing doctrinaire anti-Conservatives, too undiscriminating to distinguish anything but simple-minded rubrics (categories). There is so much more to politics than Conservative vs Liberal, while Reagan types want nothing better than to pose as Conservatives while boxing others into the category “Liberals”. And OReilly knows he is smarter than most people, and this makes it hard for him to resist pulling wool over the eyes of all and sundry. And notice his resentment at the unfairness of life which has not properly rewarded his efforts as would have been in ancient Rome when he could have been emperor --- consider his absurd touting of his self-made-man-ism.

16:52 On Fox News we get occasional small references like drops of poison which over a long period of time... e g, that we lost the Vietnam war because of resistance to it at home. This ties in with Usurper´s similar remark, that we lost because we failed to follow the military. Is blaming “liberals” the new way to escape from Vietnam-neurosis? (Like Hitler blaming the Jews for Germany losing WW1) As with OReilly particularly, so with Fox News generally, the principle applies, that it is not whether they say something wise, but whether they say something dangerous: I can sit back and laugh at the jerk Hannity, but Fox News is widely watched and clever, so what Hannity says is dangerous, and that he wraps himself (and Fox News wraps him ) in “Conservatism” is devious trickery (is that redundant?). There are considerations more substantial than Left vs Right ( populist LBJ gave us Vietnam mess and was Democrat and gave us “The Great Society”); it is not merely a sport of different competing tastes --- the very life of the nation and of the planet is at stake. One cannot take as anything but twisted, a media outlet that prominently features in heroic mode an Oliver North. I may disagree with certain arguments of a neighbor parent, but when she/he beats up his/her child, I consider that person to be beyond the pale, outcast; and Fox News too often tips over the canoe, going too far to the side of the primitive savage (not to be glorified by the name “Conservative”). And too often there are little apercu (revealing exposures) like OReilly agreeing with the notion of giving the poor a social security tax break holiday, while recently before that rejecting giving a break to the poor because it would not help the economy as they do not buy expensive cars --- I guess he will respond that he distinguishes between helping the economy and helping the poor, but such phariseeism would be merely pathetic; my point is that he does not really have a truly thought- out base, and plays the game of “fast on the feet”. And he is a blatant huckster, not only pushing his own books and crap on the web, but promoting his own tv- special about our soldiers, by attacking Cofi Anan by comparison a few days previous, saying it is the soldiers who should have got the Nobel Peace Prize --- I agree that Cofi Anan is a eunuch, but it was too convenient.

About e g Buchanan, before, “anti-Semitism” meant hatred of Jews; now it means hatred of Arabs; but it is still the same Anti-semitism, hehheh. There is a mind set that is zenophobe, and it has not change shape since the dawn of time. But if I take the position of Blue Blood America of the past, I can easily choose those Buchanan rejects, and reject those he chooses. USA has been the locus of invasion since its inception.

Has Buchanan considered the matter from the other view-point? --- USA is opposed my some who feel its cultural hegemony onerous in the extreme; is he leading us to turn the tables on them? Or perhaps he is oblivious of our general hegemony. But my attacks upon his general approach do not mean I do not agree that something has to be done about population balance and control. These people complaining of how hard it is to provide for their ten children make me nauseous. There is certainly a battle on for domination of the upcoming generations. I discuss it in my section called “Territory Therapy”. Most important is to protect the great APES from people.

OReilly says his show is not for propaganda --- but I would like him to define his show, what IS it?

The Brits are lost --- now BBC put the same cowlike frock on a weather stiff that they had on a diplomat commenter (“commentater” is a barbarism)(like “orientate”) lady a few weeks ago. And it is the Brits that are the moaners, whether on BBC or Sky. But USA stations often talk like kindergarten. But BBC has this business wretch who talks spastic and I cannot abide him (I´ll get you his name later). Anyway, note re Fox News that it is a homeland USA station basically --- unlike CNN, which is international and competes mainly with BBC internationally. And as to personality, I do not know what Murdoch sounds like, but Ted Turner talks weak, and always CNN has allowed such speakers, including with awful foreign accents --- yes, foreign; it is after all a USA station.

On Fox News: “The Beltway Boys” show --- Right and Righter.

The bit where Fox News asks you to become a Fox Fan (via web) is authoritarian, Mickey Mouse, boy scouts, for joiners and young (i e weakminded) heilers (i e it encourages those who like to say heil --- a step beyond trusting a news medium). The personality of Fox News includes this clanism. It is one with jingoism. It is dangerous. Especially when three of its mainstays (OReilly, Thomas, Hannity) call some Americans UnAmerican/Anti-American. Another personality bit is the alley-cat juvenile- deliquent style of e g, Linda Vester, Laury Dhew, and Scott Robin (or whatever the truly juvenile sex-object news guy´s name is). Yesterday Vester asked did Ashcroft “chicken out” not going for treason charge against Johnnie (Taliban Toy) Walker. A few weeks ago Dhew asked with ubrage and indignation, when Afghanis expressed some reservations at some USA military activity, if we are in the habit of asking others how we are to use our military. Of course, these are planted questions designed to appeal to rednecks.

21:08 With all the complaint about Clinton not saving us from Binladn, what was done by the media? Did OReilly, a person always flying about, fail to notice the lack of security as well as of safety while attacking Clinton for god knows what picayune crap? But he is not the only one. By devoting so much crap time to why Bosnia was supposedly not worth one American life, we did not get discussion of anti-terrorism, and certainly still do not get proper discussion of saving the great apes. I need not mention Monica. Indeed, Jerry Fallwell has it backwards: it is because we devoted so much interest to prurient matters that we could not protect ourselves. And how much is the responsibility upon the American People? And I lost interest in Larry King due to his obsession with that lost lady.

Ralph Nader (with new book) appearing on OReilly yet again shows himself a vicious demagogue: Asked what he would do about Sept 11, he was all over the table, trying to please one and all. No wonder OReilly encourages him; Nader is a saboteur of the Democrats.

Buchanan is the American Malosevich.

22:36 Buchanan with admirable candor defines himself as part of a superior group; but I pat him on the head and say, that´s nice little boy, just go to the back of the class, as you unfortunately are actually yourself inferior and merely tolerated by us betters. Buchanan defines superior as being like himself; aint that typical of the underclass.

auntenna torsdag 17. januar 2002 14:42 Remember the media etc crabbing about Bush Senior after Gulf War that he was too dedicated to foreign stuff vs domestic --- consider effect upon going after terrorists etc. Of course he should have done both --- basically the American People have to get the energy to do both. Maybe after Cold war they were exhausted. Or wary. But we previosly used Cold War as excuse (Both domestically and foreign). Maybe we now will get more energy. Maybe Bush Junior is glad Binladn distracts us from war against bad ecology. But the world does not proceed at an American pace. Nor did USA save the apes.

tirsdag 22. januar 2002 17:38 About Fox News OReilly: I have come to the disappointing conclusion that he is merely an ignorant ass/fool. Sort of an incompetent Ricki Lake.

søndag 27. januar 2002 18:58 Actually, I think OReilly is sick and a true menace. I see where Fox News will not be generally available here after end of month, and good riddance to bad rubbish.

16:52 auntenna OReilly, Hannity, Thomas and Buchanan should tour, competing with The Three Tenors, as The Four Nuns. Fox News is a tv Catholic Parochial School with Hannity and Oreilly reminding me of the nun in the film “The Blues Brothers”. I wonder why viewers would submit to being harangued, but evidently OReilly believes they like it, and that is why he does it --- I wonder what he would refrain from doing on that basis, as I note that he emphasizes that Hitler´s reason for hating the Jews was their “simony”, a simple-minded perverted notion one associates with Irish nuns, and their indoctrinated anti-Jewish brains (and he certainly has the wrong word, anyway). One had hoped such mentalities would go the way of all flesh, but here it is embodied in tv. I hope Fox News popularity is a bubble soon to burst.