« More about rights | Main | O, the humanity! »

Thank God...

... she can once again breathe the sweet air of freedom.


Well, that was short-lived, "Paris Hilton was sent screaming and crying back to jail Friday after a judge ruled that she must serve out her sentence behind bars rather than in the comfort of her Hollywood Hills home.

"It's not right!" shouted Hilton, who violated her probation in a reckless driving case. "Mom!" she cried out to her mother."


Maybe the all the Repug candidates who said during their last debate that they would pardon Scooter Libby would also grant an immediate pardon to Paris.

They called poor little Scooter's conviction and sentencing for lying to federal agents, lying under oath, and obstructing justice, "a travesty" and "completely unjustified".

Ah, those Law & Order Repugs ... until it is one of their own!

The main point of idiot Guiliani was that Scooter DID commit perjury and obstruct justice, but that it was wrong because THEY SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN QUESTIONING POOR SCOOTER, BECAUSE THEY ALREADY KNEW WHO OUTED VALARIE PLAME (Dick Armitage).

My, my, my. I don't recall the Repug outrage when Clinton was dragged in front of a court to answer BLOWJOB CHARGES. I think I remember fathead pill-popper Rush Limbaugh screeching over and over on the radio, "This isn't about sex. He lied under oath! Perjury is a crime!"

Not one Repug candidate said, "You know, Scooter lied to federal officers and lied under oath. He obstructed justice. These are crimes. If we let him walk, what does this say to society at large? That it's just OK to lie under oath? Is obstruction of justice OK?"

Nope, they all moaned and wailed about how unfair all this was to the liar.

I bet there is real Repug fear that perjury and obstruction of justice might actually be enforced some day.

Technically there was no "outing" of Valerie Plame.

She's obviously not gay, so she wasn't "outed," and she wasn't a covert operative either.

Whatever Rush tells you, JMK.

Missed this one;

Anyway, it's incumbent upon YOU to show evidence that Plame was a covert agent at the time her identity was published in Novak's column.

Was Valerie Plame a ‘covert agent,’ or had she been within the past 5 years?


Former covert CIA agent Fred Rustmann said: Plame had worked under extremely light cover overseas before 1998, after which she got married, had children and worked for at CIA headquarters in Langley as an analyst, which she did not conceal. Most of the Wilsons' neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee.


“A former CIA covert agent who supervised Mrs. Plame early in her career yesterday took issue with her identification as an "undercover agent," saying that she worked for more than five years at the agency's headquarters in Langley and that most of her neighbors and friends knew that she was a CIA employee."

"She made no bones about the fact that she was an agency employee and her husband was a diplomat," Fred Rustmann, a covert agent from 1966 to 1990, told The Washington Times.”


And what's with this obsessional hatred of the likes of Limbaugh and O'Reilly from you hardcore Liberals?

Limbaugh is a relatively moderate Conservative, even compared to say, Michael Savage, while O'Reilly is a Center-Left New Yorker!

O'Reilly opposes the death penalty and wrongly believes American energy companies like Exxon-Mobil "should sell oil taken from U.S. sources at the $20/barrell it costs and not the market price."

Those who revile Limbaugh, revile common-sense, basic American Conservatism and those who revile O'Reilly are generally more radical Liberals who seem angered by his opposing open borders and supporting harsher treatment for child sex-offenders.

Yes, I'll say it, I believe that many, if not most of the anti-O'Reilly folks seem to love child-rapists.

Nothing else seems to make any sense.

Hilarious end of your post, JMK. I spit out my Cheeriois while reading it. Thanks for the morning laugh. I'd write more, but I'm late for an appointment to rape a 7-year old.

No Fred, not you!

Not...an O'Reilly hater?!

I have some very legitimate disagreeements with O'Reilly's Center-Left positions, including his inane view that energy companies based in the U.S. "should sell oil at the $20/barrell it costs to take it out of the ground," erroneously calling the selling of oil from U.S. sources at world market prices, "price gouging," AND his naive and innane opposition to the death penalty.

I even support the death penalty for repeat child-sex offenders, as Ted Knight's "Judge Smails" (Caddyshack) character would say, "Not because I want to, but because I feel we OWE it to them."

And there's no joke intended there....I actually believe there are object lessons, yes, even for the recipient, in the death penalty.

Oddly enough, few Liberals seem to take issue with the numerous issues O'Reilly's wrong on, but they sure get excised over his trying to get Jessica's Law (a law that limits judicial discretion in pedophile cases) passed around the country.

They don't even take near as much afront to his opposition to their "open borders" views.

It seems, at least to me, that the greatest vitriol he's raised on the Left has come from his passionate campaign for stricter penalties for child molesters. I can't think of another issue the Liberals substantially disagree with him on.



Iraq? (He's been a critic of that war since the fall of Saddam's government)

The environment?

Nope, I can't really think of another major issue that's engendered such antipathy from Liberals by that guy.

O'Reilly, like many of the other clowns at Fox, are just that--circus acts. They pretend to be in the news business, covering the real news of the day, but when the likes of John Gibson, Hannity+Colmes, that embarrassment Greta Van Facelift and O'Reilly spend significant segments of their shows breaking down the details of the Paris Hilton saga, they show themselves to be the carnival barkers they really are. And when they take an isolated incident sure to create right-wing outrage and devote a full 10-20 minute segment to that subject and make it sound as if the isolated incident (be it something like John Gibson or O'Reilly's perennial anti-Xmas outrage in some podunk town or a schoolteacher in some town in Vermont showing the class a condom or a town judge somehow letting off a convicted criminal scot-free or a hot teacher boffing a 14-year-old student) is a threat to the republic, they're just doing what Fox seems increasingly good at--making mountains out of molehills.
Yes, TV is all about the ratings. But Fox should cease selling itself as a fair-and-balanced serious news network when it begins its day with a three-hour silliness-fest (Fox&Friends), moves onto Shepard Smith and his eyeliner and mascara and then degenerates into the late afternoon and evening with its line-up of barking seals.

O'Reilly does NOT do a news show, Fred.

He does a commentary show.

Van Sustern (who suffers from Bells Palsy) does a show that's focused on high-profile crimes and entertainment issues - and she's used it to take trips to various balmy locales , Natalie Halloway (Aruba), Anna Nicole Smith (Bermuda), the Ramsey case re-opened (Colorado), etc., etc. Nice work, if you can get it.

Likewise the likes of Larry King, Paula Zahn, Keith Olberman, John Stossel and many, many others on news shows and news networks do NOT do news shows either, but offer the same kind of commentary that O'Reilly, Colmes and Hannity routinely offer.

It's like the argument some have made against Conservative Talk Radio, for whatever reason (and there are a host of them) Conservatives just tend to do Talk Radio better, BUT the argument that AAR "took a more fact-based, news oriented approach," appearss completely unfounded.

They did not.

AAR tried to create the atmosphere of "Right-wing Talk Radio," but failed.

I guess everything looks easier when someone else (especially someone talented) is doing it.

As to O'Reilly, I still haven't seen any stance he's taken that's irritated Liberals more than his Jessica's Law campaign.

I still find that puzzling to say the least.

What on FoxNewsChannel is actually news programming? Is Brit Hume a newsman/anchor? He does read the news off the teleprompter at 6pm, like his colleagues Couric, Williams and Gibson. However, we also get to hear ol' Brit's personal opinions--every day--on the issues of the day, stated loudly and clearly, unlike the other network newsreaders.

Well Fred, on that score, commentary and "entertainment news" over "hard news," it seems that EVERY "all news" staion is doing that. King, Olbermann, Scarborough, etc., all do commentary shows and not straight news shows.

A few years back Drudge made a bitterly correct critique of FoxNews as having "too many leg-crossers," or female news leads (and they do from Uma Pamaraju to Harris Faulkner, to Jane Skinner and a host of others...BUT every other "all news" station has gone pretty much the same way there too.

CNN and MSNBC covered Anna Nicole the same way Fox did, same with the the Natalie Halliday (Aruba) story and the Lacy Peterson murder - they all sem to love slow police chases and missing girl stories.

But this really isn't about liking or disliking FoxNews. It's about O'Reilly, who I honestly contend is a Center-Left, New Yorker who opposes the death penalty, thinks Exxon-Mobil selling oil they take from U.S. sources at world market prices is "price gouging," etc.

Commentary is personality driven and so O'Reilly IS an effective commentator, and he tends to be very centrist in his views.

That's why I was surprised by the level of vitriol directed at him since he's gone on his "Jessica's Law crusade."

Yes, he opposes illegal immigration and the "open borders" view - who doesn't now-a-days?

Yes, he correctly framed the Virginia Beach case where an illegal drunk driver killed two American girls as "an illegal alien problem," rather than "a drunk driving problem" - he was correct there too.

He's made fun of the Vermont secessionist movement. Who hasn't? They deserve that.

BUT nothing's driven the vitriol from Liberals like his crusade for "Jessica's Law."

Maybe there's a good reason for that. I just haven't heard one yet, that's all. Can anyone possibly say "He's the wrong guy to advance that message," or something like that?

I haven't really heard anyone who can't stand O'Reilly even mention the Jessica Law thing as their reason for hating him. I have never heard the phrases "I hate O'Reilly" and "Jessica's Law" uttered in the same sentence or paragraph.

All I'm saying is that most of the controversy O'Reilly has generated has come from, or perhaps merely, since that Jessica's Law crusade.

Like I said, it's undeniable that the majority of O'Reilly's positions (anti-death penalty, and claiming that the sale of oil from American sources at world market prices is "price gouging," etc) are Center-Left.

As a Conservative I have a number of legitimate issues with many of O'Reilly's stances, but that's to be expected with any centrist.

I can't think of a single other issue Liberals would really have with O'Reilly other than his Jessica's Law campaign. Immigration? Taxes? Race/gender-based preferences? What???

Lou Dobbs, another commentator has taken an even more hardline position on the border issue with NONE of the O'Reilly controversy and at least three of the other four major commentators on the other "All News" stations (Joe Scarborough, Larry Kudlow, Glenn Beck) are, if anything, somewhat more Conservative than O'Reilly, so it can't really be about "O'Reilly being too Conservative" - that's absurd!

Only the far-Left dufus Keith Olbermann is more Liberal than O'Reilly.

I cannot and simply DO NOT believe that there are more than a few dozen people in America who feel "Olbermann is a centrist and O'Reilly some kind of far-Right ogre."

There just aren't that many people who are that dumb and that politically misinformed.

I don't think it's Jessica's Law that makes people dislike O'Reilly (why would it, anyway? Oh, right, liberals love child molesters, rapists and killers...I forgot). Perhaps it was the idiot intimating (with no basis) that the kidnapped kid in Kansas or wherever it was had enjoyed himself while in captivity.

Of course, this circus act also bores people (which can easily lead to hatred, I guess) with his 'secular progressive' stupidities, ripping people opposed to the war as anti-Americans or terrost-backers, the annual war on Xmas, the Rosie O'Donnell junk, recurring guests like that bore-ass professional grouch Bernard Goldberg, screwball Michelle Malkin, the previously hilarious-now-washed up Dennis Miller, and scintillating topics such as these:
*Student Jenny Heineman Went Undercover to Examine the Strip Club Industry (Fascinating)
*Comedy or Tragedy: Did Will Ferrell's Profane Comedy Bit Hurt a Little Girl? (Was wondering about that myself)
*Major Sex Slavery Ring Busted in Minn. Involves illegal immigrants (hmmmm)
*A 'Factor Investigation' of George Soros
*Dennis Miller on Va. Tech Massacre (Sure that was an eye-opener)
*Tom DeLay Says Rosie Must Go! (LOL)

Actually, O'Reilly was right that police suspected that Shawn Hornbeck helped abduct Ben Ownby and certainly helped to keep him hidden in kidnapper Michael Devlin's house.

O'Reilly claimed on-air that he "didn't believe in the Stockholm syndrome." OK, many respected psychologists don't believe in that either.

But even so, how's that view a contradiction of his support for Jessica's Law and a demand for harsher sentences and LESS discretion on the part of Judges dealing with pedophiles.

Soros is one of the most disreputable and despicable people on the American political scene. His politics, which openly admires the Bulgarian economy (the last remaining Stalinesque "command economy" in the world) and a man whose vehement anti-Capialism/anti-Americanism (if you're one, you're the other) has had one of the most corrosive impacts on American politics, since the pro-slavery Democrats pre-Civil War.

And Rosie, who melted down after espousing those ridiculous "9-11 Truther" conspiracy theories, such as "This had to be the first time in recorded history that fire melted steel," had to go. Trump was cruel but right when he said, "She's a loser. She's got no talent and this is what happens to losers." She certainly was an embarassment to NBC, which after William Arkin's earlier act of assailing America's troops ("They're lucky they aren't spit on and called baby-killers" - yeah, by WHO, 5'6" Bill Arkin? I don't think so!) didn't need any more Left-wing kooks melting down in public! NBC News lost some 400,000 viewers in February, in the wake of those Arkin comments.

It's OK not to like O'Reilly or Beck or Olbermann, or Dodd, though it's far easier to dislike Olbermann, given his poor showing after an illustrious ESPN Sports Center career. It's just that I'm wondering WHY O'Reilly - a Center-Left New Yorker, when the likes of Beck, Kudlow and Scarborough are all at least somewhat more Conservative than he?

Watch out America! More bogeyman are threatening our existence! George Soros! ('corrosive impact? I'd put the religious right up there too) Rosie O'Donnell! (LOL) Bulgaria! (And where do you get the notion that Bulgaria is a Stalinesque command economy, much less the only one left in the world? That's a hoot).

I assert that Bulgaria's was the LAST remaining "command economy" (that would make it Stalinesque, as the failed Soviet economy under Stalin was also a "command economy").

I'm certainly open to any proofs that it was not....but where are they?

If you admire George Soros, a former Capo (that's a Jew who helped the Nazis loot other Jews) and now reviles America's Capitalist economy, while evading taxes by operating his murky currency trading ventures off shore, yeah....I have a huge problem with that.

The above, makes Soros "anti-American scum"...in my view.

You left out your thoughts on Rosie O'Donnell, though you mentioned her.

Neither Trump nor O'Reilly got her fired. Anyone who insinuates otherwise is plain nuts.

Disney fired her because she became an embarassment when she started spouting "9-11 Truther" conspiracies, like this in regards to the Bldg #7 collapse at the WTC; "This must be the first time in recorded history that fire melted steel."

Demonstrably UNTRUE!

Steel begins to melt and looses its shape at appx 1200 degrees farenheit.

Fires routinely "melt steel," in fact, steel is forged from iron in a furnace.

AND pancake (floor-upon-floor) collapses are NOT either all that "uncommon," nor "indicative of a controlled demolition."

I know those things first hand.

I don't know whether Trump's assessment of her as "a loser" is right, but I DO KNOW that anyone who spouts the above "9-11 Truther" crap is a liability to any network that broadcasts that garbage.

In the wake of the William Arkin comments and the loss of some 400,000+ viewers in February, NBC could hardly keep an increasingly deranged O'Donnell on any longer.

Fred, on that first issue, I hope your point isn't that N Korea and Cuba remain "command economies," (and economic basketcases) as that well may be true, BUT Bulgaria and Albania were the last Eastern Block countries to maintain command economies even after the USSR fell.

Moreover, it is those economies that some deranged individuals over here point to as "just economies." Nitwits like Laura Tyson and George Soros.

I'll acknowledge that there is far more "income equality" in such places, BUT that is a bad thing...a very, VERY bad thing!

In fact, it's one of the primnary reasons such economies remain basketcases. There is simply no incentive for excellence and achievement.

I don't expect much from folks like Tyson and Soros, but at minimum I expect that they at least be truthful about the economic realities - that command economies DON'T WORK and more market oriented ones (despite the large income inequalities) DO.

I read your statement--"the Bulgarian economy (the last remaining Stalinesque "command economy" in the world)"-- not as a past tense but as stating what is true today...perhaps adding "WHICH WAS the last remaining...." would've cleared up the confusion!
As for O'Donnell, who gives a crap what she thinks? I guess certain elements of our population like to get themselves all worked up over statements from near-irrelevancies...I take Rosie's words to heart just as much as I take that ding-a-ling Elizabeth Hasselbeck's words to heart...or O'Reilly's or Hannity or anyone who has to shout to make themselves heard.

"I read your statement--"the Bulgarian economy (the last remaining Stalinesque "command economy" in the world)"-- not as a past tense but as stating what is true today...perhaps adding "WHICH WAS the last remaining...." would've cleared up the confusion!" (Fred)

Fair point, as I am grammatically challenged.

"As for O'Donnell, who gives a crap what she thinks? I guess certain elements of our population like to get themselves all worked up over statements from near-irrelevancies..." (Fred)

OK, here's why I think it's a big deal and probably why NBC/Disney did too; Rosie O'Donnell is a public figure and a commentator on a TV showed watched by millions of daytime TV fans.

In that regard what she says and how she says it ARE important. Hell, that's why Don Imus was fired - he over-reached and mis-spoke during some commentary and that created a firestorm of offense and outrage and both MSNBC & WFAN got rid of him when the sponsors began to bail.

In the wake of Willaim Arkin's corrosive comments about America's Armed Forces personnel, in his commentary "The Troops Must Respect the American People as Well," and the subsequent loss of some 400,000+ viewers from NBC Nightly News, relinquishing its top spot for the first time in over a decade, NBC could not afford to have the highly visible Rosie spouting 9-11 Truther conspiracies that are demonstrably wrong.

NBC has recently sought to stake out its territory to the Left of the other very Liberal major networks (CBS & ABC).

That would be fine IF Liberalism were a predominant mainstream viewpoint. A Liberal hasn't won the WH in OVER a quarter Century and Conservatives have controlled Congress for over a decade....even the last election saw mainly "Blue Dog" (Conservative) Dems, like Webb, Tester, Casey, Schuler and others win the day for the Dems. Today over 20% of the Dems in Congress are Conservative - a far cry from what was once "America's Liberal Party."

But there's something very wrong when ALL three major networks are decidedly Left of center in a nation where Conservatives outnumber Liberals by better than 2 to 1 according to polls.

That's why the outrage over FoxNews as a "Conservative outlet" is not only outrageous and ridiculous but galling, as well.

I remain outraged that the MSM isn't far MORE balanced! Two of the three major networks (ABC, CBS & NBC) should be in Conservative hands today, Liberals should be able to keep 1 from among the LA Times, the WaPo and the NY Times - I'd suggest they keep NBC & the LA Times.

The reason they haven't been run by Conservatives to date, is that most truly wealthy people are Liberal, as that ideology seeks to freeze the free-for-all of commerce in place, allowing those already rich to remain so, free from competition from newer ideas and hungrier competitors.

Perhaps we do need a legislative answer to making the media more representative of America, even though I am personally opposed to that, but what have we had proposed?

A "Fairness Doctrine" that targets...."Right-wing Talk Radio."

For the life of me, I just don't get that!

Post a comment