The End of the Beginning, Not That Some Will Ever Admit It

thepilot.com

If you listen to the doomsayers of our so-called liberal media and to the dire pronouncements of the Frightened Right, you might be tempted to just give in to despair and fear. But let’s look at how some of their previous predictions have turned out:

Remember how Ebola was this terrifying epidemic that was, in the words of CNN commentator (and thriller author) Robin Cook “the scariest thing we can deal with”?

Remember when the panic was so severe that New Jersey Governor and B-list presidential candidate Chris Christie was, on the most dubious legal authority, locking a nurse up in a “quarantine tent,” even though she was showing no symptoms of the disease, purely because she’d treated Ebola patients in Sierra Leone?

Remember how it was going to jump the oceans via international travel and ravage the U.S. any day now?

Well, I’m pleased to pass on this piece of good news: The World Health Organization has declared Guinea, the country where the outbreak began, to be Ebola-free. Sierra Leone was declared clear of the virus in November, and Liberia got a clean bill of health in September.

A couple of cases have since been reported in Liberia, but it does seem as if the major outbreak is over and the disease is in retreat. And, in case you didn’t notice, the mass outbreak that had Americans running in circles with their hair on fire never materialized.

Remember how, when the Iranian nuclear deal was announced, the American right wing, the congressional Israel lobby, and Our Friend Bibi were all shrieking that the dastardly Iranians would never follow through, claiming that they’d be cheating right from Day One, and acting as if President Obama had ensured that we’d be seeing mushroom clouds over Tel Aviv and D.C. within this decade?

Well, I’m pleased to pass on this good news: According to a story in the New York Times, “A Russian ship left Iran on Monday carrying almost all of Iran’s stockpile of low-enriched uranium, fulfilling a major step in the nuclear deal struck last summer and, for the first time in nearly a decade, apparently leaving Iran with too little fuel to manufacture a nuclear weapon.”

There’s still a long way to go, but the world is measurably safer from the threat of an Iranian nuke than it was a year ago.

Remember how Daesh (aka ISIS, ISIL, etc) was supposed to be this unstoppable force of invincible desert warriors, unable to be beaten except by a massive influx of American ground troops? (Not that anyone on the Right would actually admit to advocating that, but they’d deride everything else, including airstrikes, as weakness and appeasement.)

Well, I’m pleased to pass on the good news that those invincible desert warriors just got vinced. Daesh just lost the key city of Ramadi to Iraqi troops. Fact is, they’ve lost 40 percent of the ground they took since last year.

It’s gotten to the point where their leader, Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, had to send out a message to his troops trying to rally their spirits: “If we are killed and the wounds are numerous and the problems amassed against us and the hardships are great, then it is no surprise either.” No, it isn’t, Bubba, and don’t let it be a surprise that it’s going to get a lot worse. This is not the speech of someone who’s winning.

This is very likely why they’re desperately lashing out with attacks like the one in Paris. But even on that front, the news is encouraging. The Belgian police reportedly just broke up an attack planned by ISIS in that country on New Year’s Eve.

Ten major Daesh leaders, including “several external attack planners," have been killed in anti-Daesh coalition airstrikes in the past month, according to coalition spokesman Col. Steve Warren. And the mastermind of the Paris attacks, as we know, was killed by the French police.

So does all this mean that everything’s coming up roses, that all the bad times are over and that, in the words of that annoyingly catchy tune from the Lego Movie, “everything is awesome”?

No. But it means that, despite a sensation-driven media and a grasping political party, all of whom follow a business model based on convincing us all that everything is awful and that the only response to terror is to surrender to it and be terrified, things are getting better.

As Winston Churchill famously put it in 1942, after the Allied victory in the deserts of North Africa: “This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”

There are those who’d deny all hope, for their own selfish gain. But when they do, try looking at their record for prediction.

2016: The Year In Preview

 thepilot.com:

As another year draws to a close, many columnists and pundits are looking back at the year gone by. But as you well know, this column is always looking ahead. Therefore, we present for your delectation our annual Year in PREview:

JANUARY: President Obama finally caves in to pressure from the American right and uses the words “Islamic extremist” for the first time in a nationally televised speech. All the terrorists immediately lay down their arms and surrender to local authorities. “We have survived the infidel’s smart bombs and drone strikes,” states former jihadist Ali Wali ibn-Babali. “But no one can resist being called by that … that name!”

FEBRUARY: The nation is shocked when The New York Times reports a surprise win in the Iowa caucuses by former Virginia Gov. Jim Gilmore. Half a dozen other news outlets follow suit. Two days later, the Times admits that its story was wrong and that its only source was a prank phone call from a 16-year-old in Arizona. The paper promises an investigation to determine what went wrong.

MARCH: Faced with sagging poll numbers, Donald Trump takes the unusual step of announcing his proposed vice-presidential pick months before the GOP convention. In front of a crowd of cheering supporters, he announces that he’s choosing Russian President and right-wing darling Vladimir Putin. “Sure, he murders journalists and brutally invades weaker countries just because he can,” Trump bellows, “but at least he’s a leader!” Trump’s poll numbers immediately skyrocket among Republican voters.

APRIL: Donald Trump becomes the presumptive Republican nominee when all the other candidates either disappear or die under suspicious circumstances. Presumptive vice-presidential nominee Vladimir Putin releases a statement that reads: “Putin very sad. But presidential campaign not for weaklings. By the way, Putin was nowhere near any of them. Putin have witnesses.”

MAY: The New York Times claims to have obtained a memo from inside the Clinton campaign regarding potential campaign slogans. Choices reportedly include: “Hillary: Amnesty, Abortion, and Appeasement” and “Hillary: Forced Gay Marriage For Everyone.” Fox News begins a five night series on “Slogan-Ghazi.”

JUNE: The “Slogan-Ghazi” scandal collapses when the source for the bogus “memo” is revealed to be a satirical article published in a junior high school newspaper in Petaluma, Calif. The Times promises an investigation to find out what went wrong. Fox News continues to report the story as true, because, as Fox and Friends host Steve Doocy explains, “We just really hate Hillary Clinton.”

JULY: After the mysterious disappearance of front-runner Donald Trump, the Republican National Convention nominates Vladimir Putin as its nominee, who delivers his acceptance speech shirtless and on horseback. “This ticket is just so manly,” Fox News analyst Andrea Tantaros bubbles, before swooning and falling into the arms of vice-presidential nominee Chuck Norris. The confused and delusional Norris spin-kicks Tantaros off the stage.

AUGUST: Congress opens the first of what will prove to be 17 separate investigations of the “Slogan-Ghazi scandal.” Hillary Clinton, despite having garnered a winning number of delegates at the previous month’s Democratic convention, resigns her campaign, saying, “You know what? (Bad word) this (bad word). You want it, Bernie? You got it. And good (bad word) luck.”

SEPTEMBER: A hastily reconvened Democratic convention quickly nominates Bernie Sanders for president when all of the people who previously said, “I like Bernie better, but we all know Hillary’s going to win,” actually vote their real preference.

OCTOBER: Republican nominee Vladimir Putin’s poll numbers begin to slip when his campaign ads show clips of Latinos, African-Americans, Muslims, and LGBT people being rounded up and shoved into cattle cars. “OK, granted, Putin’s promising a mass internment and probable slaughter that would make the Holocaust look like a Sunday School picnic,” a visibly desperate Sean Hannity insists, “but at least he’s a real leader.” Fox co-host and Putin fangirl Kimberly Guilfoyle attempts to put a good face on the situation before she finally cracks: “At least Putin doesn’t wear mom jeans. … Oh, to heck with it, I’m terrified. How soon can I move to Canada?”

NOVEMBER: To the relief of millions, Bernie Sanders wins the U.S. Presidential election. The New York Times headline the next day, however, reads “Romney Elected in Landslide.” Within 12 hours, the Times retracts its story, admitting that its only source was a late-night drunken voicemail from Karl Rove.

DECEMBER: Fox News, insisting that The New York Times’ retraction of the Romney “victory” story is “nothing but political correctness run amuck” starts a series of investigative reports on “how Sanders stole the election from Romney.”

In short, the coming year will most likely be just like the one just gone by, only weirder. Have a good one!

In Which I Take the Side of Ted Cruz

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

By now, I assume most of you have figured out that I’m not a huge fan of Sen. Ted Cruz. I’m even less of a fan, however, of what passes for journalism in this country these days, by which I mean the shallow, image-driven, trivia-obsessed folderol that seeks to find the “gotchas” in the most ridiculous things.

Did Obama ordering orange juice on the campaign trail mean he’s not a “regular guy” who can relate to the kind of simpletons these overpaid celebrity journalists assume we are? Did Hillary Clinton not tipping in a diner mean she’s insensitive to working people, or did her overtipping mean she’s a “limousine liberal” who’s insensitive to working people? And on and on.

One of the most obnoxious practitioners of this kind of “celebrity” journalism dressed up as political analysis is Mark Halperin, who goes out of his way to prove that being a “senior political analyst for Time magazine, Time.com, and MSNBC” (according to his Wikipedia entry) does not mean you’re not a shallow, clueless hack.

This became painfully clear from viewing Halperin’s latest atrocity, an interview with Sen. Cruz for Bloomberg.com that was so embarrassing (not to mention more than a little racist), it actually made me feel bad for the candidate. Yes, you heard that right. I actually felt bad for the “Green Eggs and Ham” guy. It really was that awful.

The interview started off with Halperin asking Cruz, who’s Cuban-American, if he thought Hispanics would vote for him. This was bad enough. It became truly cringe-worthy when Halperin prefaced his next line of questioning with “people are interested in you and your identity.” Oh, dear, I thought, this will not end well.

Halperin asked if Cruz listed himself as “a Hispanic” when he applied to Princeton and to Harvard Law School. Of course, Cruz responded, that’s part of his heritage. Then the wheels really began to come off. Halperin began grilling Cruz about whether he had an “affinity for or connection to, anything part of your Cuban past.”

He asked such hard-hitting questions as: Does Cruz have a favorite Cuban food? Does he like Cuban music? Could he identify his favorite Cuban singer? And then, as I watched in fascinated horror, Halperin hit rock bottom — and started to dig.

“I want to give you the opportunity to directly welcome your colleague Sen. Sanders to the race,” he said, “and I’d like you to do it, if you would, en español.”

To his credit, Cruz declined to be Halperin’s dancing Cuban pony. “You know,” he said, “I’m going to stick to English, but I appreciate the invitation, Señor.” It may shock you, but I will give the senator mad respect for not saying, as I did while I was watching this train wreck online, “Mr. Halperin, what the [bad word] is wrong with you?”

I mean, really. Can you even imagine asking Hillary Clinton, “So, who’s your favorite white musician? Do you like mac and cheese? Say something white to welcome Sen. Bernie Sanders to the race!” Or, for that matter, asking Sanders, “So, how about that Jewish food? Gefilte fish, am I right? Do you have a favorite klezmer band? While we’re at it, can you say something in Yiddish to Hillary Clinton?”

One thing is for sure: We need to keep Mark Halperin as far away from Dr. Ben Carson as we can.

Look, there’s a lot to criticize when it comes to Ted Cruz. I’ve done it recently, and I’m sure that before this whole long electoral nightmare is over, I’ll do it again. But I really do not give a rat’s wazoo about the music he listens to or whether he eats the food of his forbears. And I don’t think the vast majority of the American people do either, just as they are incredibly uninterested in the dining, tipping or musical inclinations of JEB!, Mike Huckabee, Rand Paul, et. al.

Ask them how they’re going to deal with the rapidly growing income gap in this country, if they plan to at all. Ask them about how they’re going to fix our crumbling infrastructure. Ask them about their position on warrantless surveillance, assassination by drone, or nuclear proliferation.

In other words, Mr. Halperin and others of your ilk, do your freakin’ jobs for a change.

Mad About the "Clinton Cash" Non-Scandal? Well Here's Your Alternative.

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

So, apparently, an upcoming book, the ponderously titled “Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make Bill and Hillary Rich,” seems poised to set a record for the shortest time between a Clinton “scandal” breaking into national news and its complete collapse into a big ol’ pile of nothing.

Considering the resume of the author, a longtime professional Republican operative named Peter Schweizer, this book is clearly one of those right-wing tomes designed not to put forth any actual agenda or philosophy of governance, but to tear down the Democratic front-runner with an eye toward giving whichever piece of damaged goods is the last Republican standing a shot at the White House.

A pretty dismal strategy, to be sure. But fear not, good friends, I offer you a way out of the gloom. Bear with me for just a bit and I’ll show you.

First, let’s have a look at the allegations. They consist of the usual ginned-up “OK for me but not for thee” scandal-mongering guaranteed to make the hearts of the editors of Clinton-hating mainstream media outlets like The New York Times go pitter-pat.

The former “newspaper of record” breathlessly reported on allegations in the book that donations by officers of a Canadian company to the charitable Clinton Foundation led to the takeover of some American uranium mines by the Russian company that eventually acquired the Canadian company. Meanwhile, Bill Clinton got a big speaking fee of $500,000 from, not the Russian company or the Canadian one, but from “a Russian investment bank with links to the Kremlin that was promoting Uranium One stock.” (I know, it’s convoluted, but most right-wing conspiracy theories are.)

Sounds pretty ominous, right? Sure, until you actually start thinking.

Before the book was even released, Schweizer was forced to admit, on talk show after talk show, that there was absolutely no evidence that there was criminal wrongdoing or any “direct action” by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to influence decisions on behalf of foreign companies that donated to the Clinton Foundation.

Even Fox News’ Chris Wallace had to point out that the decision on the uranium mines was approved by no fewer than nine federal agencies, not just the Clinton State Department. (No, Hillary Clinton did not control all nine of them.)

Pressed to provide evidence, any evidence, of the actual criminality he alleged, Schweizer was forced to fall back on the old right-wing dodge, “Well, I got nothin’. I’m just raising questions.”

Maybe, he suggested hopefully, some good old-fashioned congressional investigations with the customary Blizzard O’Subpoenas will turn something up to discredit Clinton. You know, like they did with Benghazi. Except wait — they didn’t.

Big Money is, without a doubt, a pernicious influence in American politics. But if you can say with a straight face that donations to the Clinton Foundation or big speaking fees paid to the Clintons are worthy of congressional investigation while turning a blind eye to Republican pols pandering to billionaires like Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers, then, let me put this as politely as I can: You’re full of it.

But, as promised, I offer you a way out of hypocrisy. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you: Sen. Bernie Sanders.

Oh, I know, I’ve pooh-poohed the idea of the junior senator from Vermont going for the Democratic nomination. Largely because he wasn’t, you know, a Democrat. But it seems as though that rumpled, lovable old coot is about to throw his hat into the ring with a “D” on it. And boy, does he hate the big money style of politics.

He’s called for a constitutional amendment “making it clear that the right to vote and the ability to make campaign contributions and expenditures belong only to real people, not corporations.”

And he’s “continuously supported the DISCLOSE Act, which would lower the veil of secrecy over campaign finance and prevent foreign corporations, individuals and governments from interfering in our political system.” In Bernie Sanders’ America, political marriage, so to speak, would be between one American man (or woman) and one candidate. Per election, at least.

So, Republicans and Democrats, wingnuts and manic progressives: If you’re disgusted with the Clintons for associating with big donors and getting big contributions, then won’t you join me in supporting the only candidate who actually has a plan to get that kind of big money out of politics?

I mean, surely, you don’t think big speaking fees or contributions to private foundations are only bad or suspicious when Bill or Hillary Clinton are involved, right? If that kind of perceived influence-peddling makes you mad, then Bernie’s the only logical choice, right?

Right?

Ready For Hillary, I Guess

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

So we finally get a moderate Republican in the presidential race. Too bad she’s running as a Democrat.

A week ago today, former Senator and Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton surprised absolutely no one when she declared that she was seeking the Democratic nomination for president of the United States. As usual, the press and the Republicans immediately ignored the actual problems with Mrs. Clinton as a candidate and a possible president, such as her cozying up with corporate interests and her hawkish and interventionist foreign policy.

No, in deference to the “base,” they went right to the usual trivia, previously refuted tinfoil-hat conspiracy theories (Benghazi, Benghazi, BENGHAZI!!!) and of course, thinly veiled sexism.

Take, for example, the often-voiced criticism that Clinton is “arrogant” or “entitled.” Look, people, it’s a supreme act of arrogance for anyone to put themselves forward as qualified to lead the Free World. As far as I’m concerned, this “arrogance” claim is just a euphemism for the word those on the right really want to use (and occasionally have): “uppity.” They said it about President Obama, they’ll say it about Hillary Clinton, they’ll basically say it about anyone they regard as one of their inferiors who has the effrontery to aspire to political power.

On the “trivia” front, New York Times reporter Maggie Haberman took an entire column to break the story of Mrs. Clinton and her assistant dining at a Chipotle restaurant in Maumee, Ohio. Mrs. Clinton, we are told, was “in a bright pink shirt, ordering a chicken burrito bowl — and carrying her own tray.” This, it should be noted, came from a review by Ms. Haberman of the restaurant’s security video after receiving an “anonymous tip.”

But they didn’t stop there. Ms. Haberman delved deeper to bring us the news that “their order also included a Blackberry Izze drink, a soda and a chicken salad, and was filled just after 1 p.m.”

This led to a “what does it all mean?” analysis on CNN.com, which asked, with no visible trace of irony: “One of the biggest obstacles Hillary has to overcome is the perception that she represents the past. What better way to shed that outdated 1990s stigma than appearing at a hip restaurant of today?”

The real issue, of course, it the cover-up as to whether or not Clinton left a tip or whether she got more guacamole than she deserved. I think a House committee needs to be convened on this, and God help Hillary if she can’t produce the receipt.

I’ve detailed several times in these pages why I’m not naturally a fan of Clinton’s brand of Republican Lite. She seems to have come late to the realization that income inequality exists in this country and that it’s a serious problem. And, lest we forget, she voted for the Iraq War.

I’d much rather see, for example, Sen. Elizabeth Warren in the race. Problem is, Warren’s adamant that she’s not running. The people pushing Sen. Bernie Sanders to declare for the Democratic nomination seem to have forgotten one basic problem: Sanders isn’t a member of the Democratic Party.

As for the other potential Democratic candidates, I like former Virginia Sen. Jim Webb’s positions on criminal justice reform, and he was talking about income inequality before it was cool. But he’s very much a long shot at this point. And who the heck is Martin O’Malley?

All that said, when you look at the current actual and potential GOP slate of candidates, the choice is pretty clear. For example, the day after Hillary announced, Marco Rubio jumped into the race and reminded us of the weakness of the forces against her. Sen. Thirsty, apparently not aware of Mrs. Clinton’s “hip” lunch habits, derided Hillary as “the candidate of the past” before promising to roll back everything that’s happened in the last six years.

You may think it somewhat odd to hear a member of the party that idolizes Ronald Reagan and would like to see us return to the “family values” of the 1950s talking about “the politics of the past,” but as I’ve noted before, no one should expect consistency from these people.

The next president may get to appoint as many as four Supreme Court justices. I want someone in that position who’s pro-choice, pro-science, pro-LGBT rights, and pro-health care reform. And you know what? So do the majority of American people. Even on health care reform, when you ask them about the specifics of the Affordable Care Act and don’t call it “Obamacare,” people are overwhelmingly for it.

So voting for Hillary Clinton is going to be like getting old: annoying and occasionally painful, but not so bad when you consider the alternative.

It's Happening Again...

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

I tell you, this stupid “Emailgate” scandal may finally be the thing that drives me into the Hillary Clinton camp. As I’ve written several times, I’m not a huge fan of Mrs. Clinton, because she’s always come across to me as Republican Lite: all the corporate harlotry and knee-jerk hawkishness, but without the deranged raving about “legitimate rape,” gay marriage leading to bestiality, and Ebola-carrying Mexican immigrants with “thighs like cantaloupes” from toting huge bags of drugs.

All that said, I’ve frequently found myself, almost in spite of myself, rising to defend Hillary Clinton because of the sheer ridiculousness of the attacks on her from the right-wing propaganda complex, aka the national political media.

Last time she ran for president, we had the usual Very Serious Right Wing Pundits ruminating on whether Hillary was showing too much cleavage and whether or not she left a tip at a Midwestern “loose-meat” diner (whether she did or not, the Very Serious Right Wing Pundits didn’t like it).

Then, when she was secretary of state, those same Very Serious Pundits asked very seriously if she might be faking a blood clot to avoid testimony about the Benghazi murders — testimony she gave when she recovered (and which the Very Serious Pundits then mangled and misrepresented in shameful and dishonest fashion).

Now we’re supposed to get all aghast over the fact that — hang on to your hats, folks — when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton used a personal email account! From a server in her own home! OMG (as the youths on the Interwebs say), she may very well have violated the Federal Records Act of 1950! Or regulations from the National Archives! Or something!

Never mind the fact that the change in the FRA to include “electronic communications” was signed in November 2014, after Clinton had already left, on Feb. 1, 2013. Never mind the fact that new regulations from the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) regarding personal email use by government officials didn’t go out until September of that year.

Never mind the fact that Colin Powell used a personal email account when he was secretary of state because, like most government email systems, the “official” one was years behind the times and frustrating to use (according to interviews with General Powell).

Never mind that two months ago (before this phony “scandal” even broke), Clinton aides turned over 55,000 pages of work-related emails to the State Department for archiving.

Never mind that, after the State Department reviews them to make sure there’s no classified material, the emails in their possession will be posted online.

No, this is all just more evidence that “proves” the prevailing narrative of how “secretive” and “non-transparent” the Clintons are, and how they feel they’re “above the rules.” Because nothing says “secretive” like turning over 55,000 pages of your email to be posted online, and nothing says “I feel like I’m above the rules” like violating a rule that wasn’t in place when you were in office.

But surely there’s something juicy in the “personal” stuff she didn’t turn over. There’s undoubtedly a smoking gun about Benghazi in the emails between Hillary and the caterer for her daughter’s wedding. (“We decided to go with the white roses for the centerpieces, and BTW, I totally knew about the attack days in advance and did nothing because I hate America and wanted the ambassador to die. BWAHAHAHAHA. Hugs, HRC.”)

Is it irresponsible to speculate? As right-wing pundit Peggy Noonan once said about a particularly ludicrous rumor involving President Bill Clinton, it would be irresponsible not to. That, after all, is the standard used by our so-called liberal media for all things Clinton.

Our national political reportage has become an outright disgrace. Those outlets that aren’t blatant mouthpieces for the far right have become like particularly stupid hound dogs, dutifully chasing whatever manufactured “scandal of the week” gets ginned up by Drudge and Faux News, until actual analysis causes it to fall apart and they’re left chasing their tails in confusion. At least until next time, when the same moronic canines go baying off into the same woods because some right-wing blogger who’s off his meds points and yells, “Rabbit!”

In 1992, I got off the fence, put aside my misgivings about Bill Clinton, and threw my support behind him in large part because of the meanness, general blockheadedness, and pettiness of the forces arrayed against him.

I may have had my doubts, but I’d seen the Republican National Convention, and I knew I wanted nothing to do with those people, because they were bat-spit crazy. In 2015, it seems that history is repeating itself across the national media stage.

So I guess what I’m saying is that, once again, I’ve finally joined Team Clinton. Good job.

O'Reilly, Williams and the Usual Gang of Idiots

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

It’s been a bad couple of weeks for broadcast “journalists.” First there was the kerfuffle over NBC anchorman Brian Williams, who, it seems, might have embellished some of his adventures covering the Iraq war. Williams, speaking at a tribute to a retired soldier, recalled the time when, so he says, the helicopter he was on was forced down by enemy fire.

He was later forced to recant by soldiers who were there at the time who said Williams didn’t show up until a half-hour to an hour after the incident. Williams apologized and is now on a six-month suspension from NBC News.

Among the harshest critics of Williams was Fox News Host Bill O’Reilly, who said that the incident illustrated “a culture of deception in the liberal media” and that his viewers should question “if other news organizations are distorting the facts.”

By “other news organizations,” of course, O’Reilly means “other than Fox News.” If his viewers began caring about news organizations “distorting the facts,” O’Reilly would be out of a job.

The online liberal magazine Mother Jones delved into some of O’Reilly’s own claims of exploits he had while covering the 1982 Falklands War for CBS. O’Reilly, for example, has repeatedly claimed that he was “in a war zone in Argentina, in the Falklands, where my photographer got run down and then hit his head and was bleeding from the ear on the concrete. And the army was chasing us.”

The story ends with O’Reilly dragging his photographer to safety. He disparaged journalist Bill Moyers by sneering, “I missed Moyers in the war zones of [the] Falkland conflict in Argentina, the Middle East, and Northern Ireland. I looked for Bill, but I didn’t see him.” And so on.

O’Reilly also talks about being caught in a “major riot” in Buenos Aires, where “many were killed” and O’Reilly himself had an automatic rifle pointed at him by an Argentine soldier.

Problem is, according to all accounts, no American journalists (and only a tiny handful of British ones) were allowed into the “war zone” in the Falklands, so it’s clear O’Reilly never reported from there. No one else can seem to remember the incident with the photographer.

As for the “major riot” with fatalities, CBS news’s own account (including footage apparently shot by O’Reilly and his team) shows an angry demonstration, but doesn’t show any violence beyond “a man throwing a punch against the car of a Canadian news crew,” according to the Mother Jones article (which actually includes the footage in question).

O’Reilly, confronted with these contradictions, immediately followed Williams’ example, issued a full apology, and went on a six-month hiatus from Fox News.

Ha ha! Just kidding. O’Reilly told Politico that the article was “garbage” and snarled that Corn was a “despicable guttersnipe.”

He even went so far as to threaten New York Times journalist Emily Steele if he didn’t like what she wrote. “I am coming after you with everything I have,” Steele says O’Reilly told her. “You can take it as a threat.”

This was probably a mistake. As I once said to Winston Churchill as we crouched in a bunker during the London Blitz, “Never get into a public fight with people who buy ink by the barrel.” I’ll never forget his reply to me: “Who the bloody [expletive deleted] are you?” Then he threw a Scotch bottle at me. That Winston. What a kidder.

Where both O’Reilly and Williams went wrong is that they began to believe in their own celebrity. The stories they were covering were larger than life, so they felt as if they needed to be larger themselves. It’s a perilous trap, as Master Yoda explained to me right before the attack on the second Death Star: “Forget not my words: the story you are not.”

The difference, however, is summed up in a conversation I had with Arianna Huffington when we were having a drink at the 2012 Democratic Convention. “To be a right-winger,” I told her over apple-tinis, “is to live life without consequences. Accountability is for liberals. If you’re on the right, you can lie, you can make stuff up, and if you get caught at it, all you have to do is claim that you’re the victim of a political vendetta by liberal media and stand your ground. Voila! You’re a right-wing hero.”

I’ll never forget her response: “Security! Over here!”

I think she’s kind of into me. Chicks dig it when I speak French like that. But hey, let’s keep that last part between us. No need to tell the wife. She’s still all stressed out from doing reshoots for the new “Avengers” movie.

THE GOBSHITES SPEAK: I knew this one would get a reaction from the usual gang of idiots, and as always, I'm right. Most of it is in the standard vein of "O'REILLY'S NOT A LIAR, YOU'RE A LIAR BLAGH BLAGH BLAGH! As always, the charge is led by the spasmodically  foaming "Francis", who used to post as "Mark," so I've taken to calling him "Mark/Francis": 

Francis posted at 9:31 am on Sun, Mar 1, 2015.

Posts: 1427

Talk about living life through the experiences of others, dude you have made a living from perfecting that craft, only uniform that yourself has ever worn is probably the BSA, and that may be stretching things a bit, only danger you faced has probably been trying to outrun your own shadow, l 'm not an O'Reilly fan but only thing worse than a liar is a coward that cashes in on writing about that liar.

There's nothing quite so amusing as being called a "coward" by someone who's already admitted in print he's so afraid of me that he doesn't dare post under his own name. Come out from under the rock, "Mark/Francis". I'm pretty sure I know who you are now anyway. 

Then of course, there's the weekly" "why are you writing about this" response by the people who can't wait every week to tell me how much they're bored by the column they read every week: 

FarmBoy posted at 10:04 pm on Sat, Feb 28, 2015.

Posts: 127

Gee Dusty, thanks for such a relevant topic.

Any time, FarmBoy. Let me know if you ever have anything useful to add. 

Flights of Insanity: The Media and Missing Jetliners

The Pilot Newspaper: Opinion

What is it about missing jetliners that causes media outlets to completely lose their minds? (I mean, even more than usual.)

You may remember what happened after the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines flight MH370 in March of last year. Bafflement about what had happened to the unfortunate aircraft quickly gave way to the type of crack-brained speculation you’d expect from a barefoot bearded guy raving on a street corner in a dirty pajama bottom and a stained Army surplus jacket.

Our old friends at Fox News, for example, trotted out one crazy theorist after another. They had a retired lieutenant general who came on and said he was “certain” the plane had been hijacked and secretly taken to Pakistan.

They had Erik Rush of WorldNet Daily, who appeared on Fox and claimed to have a source who told him that the U.S. (on President Obama’s orders, of course) took control of the plane via remote control of the “fly-by-wire” system, then diverted it to the Indian Ocean island of Diego Garcia. There, software engineers who were preparing to defect to China with sensitive computer data were taken away, and everyone else on the flight was murdered to cover up the plot.

The one who really led the charge over the Cliffs of Insanity, however, was CNN’s Don Lemon, whose commentary on the disappearance of Flight MH370 earned him a spot on the Columbia Journalism Review’s “Worst of 2014” list.

Lemon got the ball rolling when he began openly wondering if there was a “supernatural” explanation for the plane’s disappearance. “Why aren’t you talking about the possibility,” he demanded, “that something odd happened to this plane, something beyond our understanding?”

What cemented his place in last year’s Hall of Shame, however, was the moment when he suggested, in front of a panel of guests, that the plane might have been sucked into a black hole in the sky. “I know it’s preposterous,” Lemon said, “but is it really preposterous?”

Yes, Don. Yes, it is. I hear that Stephen Hawking is working on designing a mechanical arm so he can whop you upside the head with it.

Now, with the disappearance of AirAsia Flight QZ8501, it appears as if the same silly circus is beginning again. Fox News host Anna Kooiman asked if maybe the plane crashed because of “differently trained” pilots using the metric system. “It’s not just a difference in the way that we measure things?” she asked. “Is it not as safe in that part of the world? Because our viewers may be thinking, ‘International travel, is it safe? Is it not safe?’”

Over on CNN, “aviation expert” Mary Schiavo attempted to assure us that it couldn’t be a terrorist attack because “most terrorist activity takes place in good weather.”

Meanwhile on Twitter, CNN viewers have been begging the network for “less crazy this time.” Well, we can hope, I suppose, especially now that they may have started finding actual debris and bodies from the terrible crash.

Part of the problem, as always, can be laid at the feet of the 24-hour news cycle, which constantly demands new material to view, read or download. Certainly there’s a powerful temptation to feed that ravenous beast with anything near to hand, even if it’s garbage.

In addition, as people like Harvard Law professor Cass Sunstein (author of the book “Conspiracy Theories and Other Dangerous Ideas”) have pointed out, inconsistent information from “official” sources contributes to an environment of uncertainty. That kind of uncertainty provides fertile ground for the wildest conspiracy theorists.

That’s a reasonable explanation for the behavior of the paranoid fringe, wrapping their tinfoil hats on tighter as they hammer away on their keyboards to blog about their latest demented fantasy. But when it comes to supposedly “legitimate” news sources (and, for the moment, I’ll include Fox in that category) — well, to paraphrase one of my favorite lines from one of my favorite movies, it’s not their job to be as freaked out as we are.

Certainly it’s the responsibility of governments involved in a mass disappearance or other disaster to provide accurate information in a timely fashion. But in the event that they don’t, it’s equally the responsibility of news organizations not to fill the void with ridiculous speculation and wild theories that would embarrass a writer of ’30s pulp novels.

Like it or not, the news media help shape public perception and opinion, and that gives them a responsibility beyond just filling air time with nonsense. Someone needs to act like the grownup here.