Here's a little story that I hope doesn't get lost in the media blitz surrounding the caucus/primary results. The story is about Bill O'Reilly shoving an uncooperative Obama staffer at an event in New Hampshire. John Dickerson is a highly regarded political correspondant for Slate magazine and was personally on the scene to cover the story, and coudln't stop himself from telling him to "grow-up." Though O'Reilly is a physically imposing presence and often takes a threatening tone on his stupid TV show, I don't know if I've ever seen any stories of him resorting to physical violence. For someone that clamors for law and order on a nightly basis, this seems like odd behavior.
Cornucopia, the Horn of Plenty, while advocating for a more sensible approach to our nation's drug policy and general incarceration rate, takes any violent crime very seriously and supports the notion of strict punishment for violent offenders. Perhaps that's why I find this story so interesting.
Even if, as the article suggests, an Obama staffer was blocking his view, this doesn't give him the right to shove the staffer out of the way, pure and simple. In fact, Obama doesn't even have to speak to him if he is not so inclined. Bill O'Reilly might just have to learn that even nationally famous TV commentators don't always get the shot that they want. And when they don't get that shot, if they resort to pushing people around there may be consequences. The evolving lawyer part of me is hoping to see headlines of a lawsuit in the not-too-distant future. I honestly hope we haven't heard the end of this story.
Note-- The best part of the story is when some in the crowd intoned the word "falafel" during the rally. This was an allusion when Bill O'Reilly confused the word loofa (a device for scrubbing one's body) with "falafel" (a prominent component of middle eastern cuisine) whilst sexually harassing a former co-worker.
The case was settled out of court but my sources (gut-feeling) say that Mr. O'Reilly has never touched falafel since.
When I was in Cameroon in my tiny, pink-walled bungalow, I was the lucky beneficiary of a library of books left behind by my volunteer predecessors.Among this treasure trove (you find it, you keep it!) of literature was the book “The Great Unraveling: Losing our Way in the New Century" by New York Times columnist and Princeton economist Paul Krugman. Paging through the book --a collection of his columns--was one of the more effective means I've ever discovered of generating a big, heady dose of political righteous indignation. This was particularly effective sometime around Nov. 3 of 2004, when, whenever necessary, I could select a column and be reminded of all of the fascinating ways in which our electorate had seriously fucked up.
Though I was supposed to be glow in the dark bowling tonight with book weary law students, when I learned Krugman was here in Iowa City I had to postpone it.Bowling with me is always pretty predictable anyway: 3 games with an average between 140-160, several strikes, variety of fist pumps, several ball changes, many celebratory dances, and several times where I’m so disgusted with my shot that I walk back to the scoring area without even watching the result.(Note: this is followed by a quick look over my shoulder, EVEN THOUGH I OBVIOUSLY DO NOT CARE, to make sure that the ball that I through down the middle of the lane did not miraculously pick up that 7/10 split).
Those of you who have ever bowled with me are familiar with this routine.I can recreate it any time I want.
What I can’t recreate anytime is a live Q and A at the Englert Theatre with Paul Krugman, one of my favorite columnists of all time.Julie Englander, the regular presenter for the Prarie Lights author sessions, introduced him tonight as the "most important political columnist in America." And then there's bowling.
Krugman was fantastic. He was funny and insightful, and, oddly, despite all of the dire predictions of "The Great Unraveling," extremely optimistic about the direction of the country. People are finally seeming sensible and fed-up, he noted. . .this seems to be the inadvertent gift of George W. Bush.
The talk was basically the distillation of the thesis of his book into about a 40 minute talk, with a special emphasis on the implications of the upcoming presidential race.
His thesis:
America is regressing.We had a gilded age with robber barons and enormous disparities in wealth and privilege and power, then we had the New Deal, then the 40’s, and 50’s gave us a strong middle class with strong labor, and then came movement conservatism that essentially is seeking to put us back into the late 19th century (the return of the barons!).
While countries like Canada, France, and the Scandanavian countries (those same countries that are on the top of every standard of living index in existence) have been tweaking capitalism in an effort to benefit a the common welfare and preserve a strong entrepreneurial spirit, the conservative movement has been attempting to roll back every New Deal program they can get their hands on.
Though NYT policy forbids him from making presidential endorsements, he did speak at length about the kind of president he wanted. He said to be aware of candidates beholden to special interests (read: Hillary Clinton) and beware of overly polite "cross-the-aislers" who are looking for bipartisanship (here's looking at Obama). Since substantive differences between the candidates are negligible, he basically wants someone with some fire in his/her belly who can, above all else, really push through universal health care. Process of elimination, plus the fire in the belly qualification leads me to believe that this was a thinly veiled endorsement of John Edwards.
Interesting. Lately John Edwards has been espousing the most populist message. The other night at Jefferson Jackson he claimed that if congress didn't let him push through a health care plan he would take away government health care for the house, senate, and president. You gotta like that kind of talk.
Krugman then took questions from the audience members, a few of whom were crazy people. He proved himself to be extremely likable and great with his off the cuff analysis.
Fortunately, no one was tased throughout the talk.
Here's a clip of him and Bill O'Reilly having a civil talk with Tim Russert. Sometimes watching Bill O'Reilly makes me sick to my stomach. As Stephen Colbert once noted (paraphrase) "you know Bill, a lot of people criticize you for what you say, but they never give you credit for how loud you say it."
Couldn't agree more. Apparently Bill O'Reilly missed out on that whole "jobless recovery" thing that everyone was talking about when this interview took place.
I remember watching sometime before the war an exchange between Janeane Garofalo and Bill O'Reilly wherein O'Reilly ridiculed Garofalo for her reservations about a war that could kill many civilians. Here is just a snippet of that transcript: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
03/08/2003 Bill O'Reilly questioned actor/activist Janeane Garofalo;
BILL O'REILLY: "If you are wrong, all right, and if the United States, and they will, this is going to happen, goes in, liberates Iraq, people in the street, American flags, hugging our soldiers, all right, we find all kinds of bad, bad stuff, all right, in Iraq, you gonna apologize to George W. Bush?"
JEANINE GAROFALO: "I'll bring roses right to his front door. I will bring a fruitcake and roses. I would be so willing to say I'm sorry, I hope to God that I can be made a buffoon of, that people will say, 'you were wrong, you were a fatalist,' and I will go to the White House on my knees on cut glass and say, 'Hey, you were right, I shouldn't have doubted you.' But I think that is preposterous. The flip side of the coin is, will he, and for that matter, will you offer me the same courtesy if I'm right? If we're treated as invaders instead of liberators, will you invite me back to your show and apologize in front of your viewers?"
BILL O'REILLY: "Absolutely. But I hate to disappoint ya,' it ain't gonna turn out that way."
Apparently when O'Reilly said "it aint gonna turn out that way," he meant that he wasn't going to invite her back to the show. He probably said it very loudly, with finality. . .and an impressive amount of conviction. . .
I can't find the video on either Youtube or on the O'Reilly factor homepage, but I remember watching it. If anyone knows where the video can be found on the web feel free to let me know. Some more details about Bill O'Reilly's shameful conduct can befound here. Does this mean that Bill O'Reilly can't make fun of socially conscious film stars anymore?
