-Caveat Lector- January 22, 2003
How Alec Baldwin Outted the Fox Blowhard http://www.counterpunch.org/gorman01222003.html Bill O'Reilly's Fascism By TOM GORMAN Last year on a special broadcast, "O'Reilly versus Hollywood" (Fox News Special, 6/7/02), Bill O'Reilly purported to "take-on" the "phoniness" of entertainers who are politically active. Of particular pique to O'Reilly was a comment from actor Alec Baldwin on a March episode of the now-defunct Politically Incorrect. Responding to the idea that a President Gore would have been less steadfast in his response to terrorism than President Bush, Baldwin said: "If you watched Fox [News] and all those other fascists over there, that's exactly what they would have had you believe." O'Reilly complained to entertainment journalist Jeanne Wolf (The O'Reilly Factor, 6/7/02) that "if you're going to point fingers at people, and call them names like Alec Baldwin said the Fox News Channel are fascists, . . . you've got to back it up." Two years ago, O'Reilly first offered his definition of "fascism." "Clinton angered a lot of people out West with these executive orders that took away a lot of land that people wanted to develop . . . and put it under the federal system. Now, to me, that strikes- that's a little fascist, because . . . here is a big monolith from Washington coming in, told the local folks. . . . You can't go on this property and use it for any kind of concern, because we're going to take it" (The O'Reilly Factor, 1/22/01). Earlier this month, O'Reilly gave an example of a "fascist" organization--the American Civil Liberties Union. Interesting here are not his accusations off the ACLU defending unpopular clients; this is an oft- repeated charge. Being that the ACLU's mission is to defend principles regardless of the group whose rights are being violated, O'Reilly's accusation is hardly original. What does stand out is his further definition of "fascism": "In Newton County, Georgia, the ACLU threatened a school board with litigation if it didn't remove the words 'Christmas holiday' from the school calendar. The county caved and removed the words because it couldn't afford to defend the lawsuit. This, ladies and gentlemen, is fascism, that is, using the threat of terror, which a lawsuit is, to promote policy" (The O'Reilly Factor, 1/2/03). If lawsuits, then, are terror, and "using the threat of terror" is fascism, then, by O'Reilly's logic, the use of lawsuits is fascism. The Seventh Amendment to the United States Constitution ensures that, "In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise reexamined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law." "Suits at common law" are otherwise known as "lawsuits." This is more colloquially referred to as one's "right to his or her day in court." This bedrock of American contract law--the ability to seek redress in the judiciary for injury--is also one of the foundations of capitalism. If individuals did not have the opportunity to settle their grievances through the rule of law, the only option left would be violent force. Arguably, "might makes right" comes closer to most people's definition of fascism. Thus, we can deduce from O'Reilly's "logic" that "fascism" encompasses both the rule of law and the rule of force, a Hobson's choice between two kinds of terrorism in Bill O'Reilly's estimation If the federal government administering federal lands can be considered "a little fascist," or the ACLU enforcing First Amendment protections against state- sponsored religion is "fascism" and the "use of terror," then O'Reilly's comments after the September 11 attacks surely must qualify for this rubric as well: "We should not target civilians. But if [the Afghans] don't rise up against this criminal government [the Taliban], they starve, period," and, "What we can do is . . . say to those people, 'Look, we don't want to do this. But either you get rid of this guy yourself, or you're just going to have to starve to death because we're not going to let anybody in there'" (The O'Reilly Factor, 9/17/01). The 1948 Genocide Convention (specifically, Article II(c): "Deliberately inflicting on [a national] group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part," and Article III(c): "Direct and public incitement to commit genocide") was enacted in response to the unambiguously fascist crimes of the Nazis. (Read the full text of the Convention at http://www.unhchr.ch/html/menu3/b/ p_genoci.htm. Note that there is no exception to this law; even if you do not like the government in a certain country, or if you believe that the country "harbors terrorists," genocide is still strictly forbidden.) Considering the United States is a signatory to the Genocide Convention, and that Article VI of the US Constitution makes all treaties entered into by the United States the "supreme law of the land," O'Reilly's call for starving the people of Afghanistan certainly seems to be a "direct and public incitement to commit genocide." Thus it would appear that Alec Baldwin's characterization seems quite accurate, if not for all of Fox News, then certainly for Bill O'Reilly. Tom Gorman is a writer and activist living in Glendale, California. He welcomes comments at [EMAIL PROTECTED] February 12, 2003 Bill O'Reilly's Fascism, Part 2 http://www.counterpunch.org/gorman02122003.html Goebbels Would Have Been Proud by TOM GORMAN Since an article I wrote last month for CounterPunch ("Bill O'Reilly's Fascism," January 22), Mr. O'Reilly has graciously assisted in demonstrating my thesis. In the original essay, I quote O'Reilly's most recent definition of fascism: "Using the threat of terror, which a lawsuit is, to promote policy," (The O'Reilly Factor, 1/2/03). One correspondent has accused me of being "sloppy" in supposedly conflating O'Reilly's definition to include all lawsuits rather than ones used, as O'Reilly stated, "to promote policy." I find this argument specious in that "to promote policy" is a sufficiently ambiguous qualifier as to include nearly any cause for which one might sue. To wit, the threat O'Reilly made, through his lawyers, to the author of the <oreilly-sucks.com> website. O'Reilly's lawyers warn the author that his "unauthorized use of Mr. O'Reilly's name for commercial use" is a violation of the law (the website contains advertising banners). "Immediately discontinue using Mr. O'Reilly's name in any way as a designation for your website. . . . To the extent that you ignore this request, you do so at your own peril," threatens Dianne Brandi, a lawyer for both O'Reilly and Fox News. I would argue that the "policy" being promoted here by these "fascist terrorists" is O'Reilly's, namely, wanting to be able to criticize without being criticized in return. Perhaps even more indicative of O'Reilly's fascism, though, was his treatment on the February 4 edition of the "O'Reilly Factor," of Jeremy Glick, a signer of the Not In Our Name Statement of Conscience whose father perished in the World Trade Center attacks: O'REILLY: In the "Personal Stories" segment tonight, we were surprised to find out than an American who lost his father in the World Trade Center attack had signed an anti-war advertisement that accused the USA itself of terrorism. The offending passage read, "We too watched with shock the horrific events of September 11... we too mourned the thousands of innocent dead and shook our heads at the terrible scenes of carnage -- even as we recalled similar scenes in Baghdad, Panama City, and a generation ago, Vietnam." With us now is Jeremy Glick, whose father, Barry, was a Port Authority worker at the Trade Center. Mr. Glick is a co-author of the book "Another World is Possible." I'm surprised you signed this. You were the only one of all of the families who signed... JEREMY GLICK, FATHER DIED IN WORLD TRADE CENTER: Well, actually, that's not true. O'REILLY: Who signed the advertisement? GLICK: Peaceful Tomorrow, which represents 9/11 families, were also involved. O'REILLY: Hold it, hold it, hold it, Jeremy. You're the only one who signed this advertisement. GLICK: As an individual. O'REILLY: Yes, as -- with your name. You were the only one. I was surprised, and the reason I was surprised is that this ad equates the United States with the terrorists. And I was offended by that. GLICK: Well, you say -- I remember earlier you said it was a moral equivalency, and it's actually a material equivalency. And just to back up for a second about your surprise, I'm actually shocked that you're surprised. If you think about it, our current president, who I feel and many feel is in this position illegitimately by neglecting the voices of Afro- Americans in the Florida coup, which, actually, somebody got impeached for during the Reconstruction period -- Our current president now inherited a legacy from his father and inherited a political legacy that's responsible for training militarily, economically, and situating geopolitically the parties involved in the alleged assassination and the murder of my father and countless of thousands of others. So I don't see why it's surprising... O'REILLY: All right. Now let me stop you here. So... GLICK: ... for you to think that I would come back and want to support... O'REILLY: It is surprising, and I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why it's surprising. GLICK: ... escalating... O'REILLY: You are mouthing a far left position that is a marginal position in this society, which you're entitled to. GLICK: It's marginal -- right. O'REILLY: You're entitled to it, all right, but you're -- you see, even -- I'm sure your beliefs are sincere, but what upsets me is I don't think your father would be approving of this. GLICK: Well, actually, my father thought that Bush's presidency was illegitimate. O'REILLY: Maybe he did, but... GLICK: I also didn't think that Bush... O'REILLY: ... I don't think he'd be equating this country as a terrorist nation as you are. GLICK: Well, I wasn't saying that it was necessarily like that. O'REILLY: Yes, you are. You signed... GLICK: What I'm saying is... O'REILLY: ... this, and that absolutely said that. GLICK: ... is that in -- six months before the Soviet invasion in Afghanistan, starting in the Carter administration and continuing and escalating while Bush's father was head of the CIA, we recruited a hundred thousand radical mujahadeens to combat a democratic government in Afghanistan, the Turaki government. O'REILLY: All right. I don't want to... GLICK: Maybe... O'REILLY: I don't want to debate world politics with you. GLICK: Well, why not? This is about world politics. O'REILLY: Because, No. 1, I don't really care what you think. GLICK: Well, OK. O'REILLY: You're -- I want to... GLICK: But you do care because you... O'REILLY: No, no. Look... GLICK: The reason why you care is because you evoke 9/11... O'REILLY: Here's why I care. GLICK: ... to rationalize... O'REILLY: Here's why I care... GLICK: Let me finish. You evoke 9/11 to rationalize everything from domestic plunder to imperialistic aggression worldwide. O'REILLY: OK. That's a bunch... GLICK: You evoke sympathy with the 9/11 families. O'REILLY: That's a bunch of crap. I've done more for the 9/11 families by their own admission -- I've done more for them than you will ever hope to do. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: So you keep your mouth shut when you sit here exploiting those people. GLICK: Well, you're not representing me. You're not representing me. O'REILLY: And I'd never represent you. You know why? GLICK: Why? O'REILLY: Because you have a warped view of this world and a warped view of this country. GLICK: Well, explain that. Let me give you an example of a parallel... O'REILLY: No, I'm not going to debate this with you, all right. GLICK: Well, let me give you an example of parallel experience. On September 14... O'REILLY: No, no. Here's -- here's the... GLICK: On September 14... O'REILLY: Here's the record. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: All right. You didn't support the action against Afghanistan to remove the Taliban. You were against it, OK. GLICK: Why would I want to brutalize and further punish the people in Afghanistan... O'REILLY: Who killed your father! GLICK: The people in Afghanistan... O'REILLY: Who killed your father. GLICK: ... didn't kill my father. O'REILLY: Sure they did. The al Qaeda people were trained there. GLICK: The al Qaeda people? What about the Afghan people? O'REILLY: See, I'm more angry about it than you are! GLICK: So what about George Bush? O'REILLY: What about George Bush? He had nothing to do with it. GLICK: The director -- senior as director of the CIA. O'REILLY: He had nothing to do with it. GLICK: So the people that trained a hundred thousand Mujahadeen who were... O'REILLY: Man, I hope your mom isn't watching this. GLICK: Well, I hope she is. O'REILLY: I hope your mother is not watching this because you -- that's it. I'm not going to say anymore. GLICK: OK. O'REILLY: In respect for your father... GLICK: On September 14, do you want to know what I'm doing? O'REILLY: Shut up. Shut up. GLICK: Oh, please don't tell me to shut up. O'REILLY: As respect -- as respect -- in respect for your father, who was a Port Authority worker, a fine American, who got killed unnecessarily by barbarians... GLICK: By radical extremists who were trained by this government... O'REILLY: Out of respect for him... GLICK: ... not the people of America. O'REILLY: ... I'm not going to... GLICK: ... The people of the ruling class, the small minority. O'REILLY: Cut his mic. I'm not going to dress you down anymore, out of respect for your father. We will be back in a moment with more of THE FACTOR. GLICK: That means we're done? O'REILLY: We're done. After going to commercial, Glick reports that O'Reilly threatened him. "Get out, get out of my studio before I tear you to fucking pieces!" Beyond the fascist threat of physical violence, it is amusing to note that O'Reilly considers the studio to be "his." The public, in fact, owns the airwaves over which he broadcasts his fascist rantings. Furthermore, O'Reilly invited Glick on the show. After giving in to O'Reilly's threat, Glick was approached by "nearly all" of the studio staff who apologized for O'Reilly's behavior, but encouraged Glick--who was, as he put it, "having a cup of coffee to calm his nerves" after the near-battery by O'Reilly- -to leave before O'Reilly found out he was still there. The next day, O'Reilly continued to slander Glick, citing letters that were supposedly running eight to one in praise of his bullying. "Glick was out of control and spewing hatred for this program and his country using vile propaganda. This is a no-spin zone, and wild ravings will be shut down quick," huffed O'Reilly, though Glick argues that the video of the exchange shows O'Reilly as the one "out of control." Glick dismisses this as a clear case of "projection" on O'Reilly's part. One letter writer commented that Glick's "condemnation of America and his stated sympathy for those who killed his father was truly appalling," though anyone who reads the transcript above can see this as an absolute lie. While completely understanding Glick not wanting to be brutalized by the fascist O'Reilly, it would have be an interesting lawsuit against the bully of Fox News. Also, I would encourage Glick to pursue criminal charges against O'Reilly with the Manhattan District Attorney's office for violation of New York Penal Code Section 240.26, "Harassment in the second degree": "A person is guilty of harassment in the second degree when, with intent to harass, annoy or alarm another person: 1. He or she strikes, shoves, kicks or otherwise subjects such other person to physical contact, or attempts or threatens to do the same" Should Glick be reluctant to press charges, perhaps it is incumbent upon the Manhattan prosecutor to follow through on this case for the safety of society. District Attorney Robert Morgenthau's office can be reached at (212) 335-9000. Tom Gorman is an activist and writer living in Glendale, CA. He welcomes comments at [EMAIL PROTECTED] Forwarded for your information. The text and intent of the article have to stand on their own merits. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. section 107, this material is distributed without charge or profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving this type of information for non-profit research and educational purposes only. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe simply because it has been handed down for many genera- tions. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumoured by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is written in Holy Scriptures. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of teachers, elders or wise men. Believe only after careful observation and analysis, when you find that it agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all. Then accept it and live up to it." The Buddha on Belief, from the Kalama Sut <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/";>www.ctrl.org</A> DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER ========== CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic screeds are unwelcomed. Substance—not soap-boxing—please! These are sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'—with its many half-truths, mis- directions and outright frauds—is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply. Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector. ======================================================================== Archives Available at: http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html <A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html";>Archives of [EMAIL PROTECTED]</A> http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/ <A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/";>ctrl</A> ======================================================================== To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email: SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED] Om
