Need a couple of fresh reasons to dislike Bill O’Reilly?
Ladies and gentlemen, O’Reilly on the ACLU:“The ACLU is the most fascist organization I have seen in decades. They want to tell you how to live. They don’t want to abide by the Constitution. They want to go AROUND the Constitution. They’re intellectual fascists. And they use the courts as their Panzer divisions.”Nothing expresses faith in our nation of laws like comparing “courts” and “Panzer divisions”, does it?
No, I don’t really need fresh reasons, but they don’t hurt anything.
That notorious interview on Fresh Air - where he pretended Terri Gross had been horribly biased and ‘liberal’ and blah blah because she asked O’Reilly hostile questions and she didn’t ask Al Franken hostile questions. ‘You should be ashamed,’ he yelled in his usual self-righteous manner, and then stalked off, and later bragged about it on his horrible poxy little tv show. T.G. didn’t think quite fast enough (nor would I have had I been at her desk) - she could have told him the truth: she wasn’t more civil to Franken because he’s a ‘liberal’ and O’Reilly is a conservative. She was more civil to him because he’s a nice guy (at least on air, which is the issue here) and funny, and O’Reilly is a horrible loud braying self-infatuated bully and about as funny as a rock. It wasn’t political. It was basically about manners. O’Reilly’s are terrible.
(Plus of course there’s the lying.)
“equivocation”?
I will say that the ACLU is completely inconsistent with respect to the Second Amendment. There’s no question that the Framers intended to bestow a personal right, and yet the ACLU clings to the notion that it does not because the fashion of its donors dictates it. A very interesting resource is the Fifth Circuit’s opinion in United States v. Emerson, which traces the history of the Second Amendment.
There’s no question? No question at all? Hmm. I’ve read some historians who wouldn’t agree with that. (And no I don’t mean Bellesiles.)
Apparently, the ACLU has filed this amicus brief on behalf of Rush Limbaugh. Hmmmmmm—those darn fascists at it again.
That reminds me of Bush Senior’s lovely sneer about a ‘card-carrying member’ of the ACLU. One of his finer moments.
My memory of “card carrying member of the ACLU” is that Dukakis actually said that all by himself, as in “I’m proud to be a…” and Bush picked it up and turned it against him.
No. I don’t need any more reasons.
Classic O’Reilly spin tonight. O’Neill’s accusations against Bush are no big deal—he’s just a “prissy” malcontent who got fired.
Shut up Shut up Shut up
I don’t want to take this off on dedman’s tangent, but I’ll see his Emerson and call (not raise) with Silveira v. Lockyer, the appeal of which was denied certiorari by the US Supreme Court.
Oh, and the discussion of the 2nd in Emerson is dicta; and we know what Justice Scalia thinks of dicta, at least.
A very astonishing quote—“astonishing” in that it’s an audacious lie. But I wonder if each of us is careful to avoid similar (mirror-image) hyperbole in our own writing.
Dicta or no, it is certainly helpful and informative. A scholarly opinion indeed. As for Silveira, the mere fact that cert was denied is not a sign one way or the other on how SCOTUS would ultimately rule, as you know. It is curious that the Court refuses to clarify the issue. After all, the Second Amendment has yet to be made binding on the states by incorporation through the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. What’s up with that? The last meaningful discussion of the Second Amendment by SCOTUS was before World War II. Now, I’m not suggesting that there can be no restrictions on firearms ownership — just as there are tests, qualifications, and special circumstances in First Amendment jurisprudence, so too would there be in Second Amendment jurisprudence. The real problem, of course, is that there is no meaningful jurisprudence from the high court on the issue, so that’s where we are, left to scour the writings and personal papers of the Founders.
To Ophelia, I say merely that I stand by my statement. We can argue today about what we think the Second Amendment means, or what it should mean, but the papers and surrouding circumstances of the Second Amendment at its inception clearly suggest a personal right. To those opposed to that, there’s a better approach than elasticizing the constitutional language:Why not just concede that yes, the Second Amendment guarantees individuals the right to bear arms, then recite all of the familiar arguments against gun ownership as it now stands, and propose a constitutional amendment? That approach, though undesirable by most and unwise in social policy, would at least be intellectually honest on the issue. No less of a constitutional scholar that Joe Pesci in the terrible, terrible film With Honors stated that “[t]he beauty of the Constitution is that it can always be changed.” After all, if conservatives can advocate sullying the constitutional with social views on marriage, why can’t the liberals do the same on the gun issue? Who knows?See here for more of that. Of course, such an approach would be exhaustively difficult, but at least it would be intellectually honest.
There’s no need to rehash the 2nd Amendment/gun control debate here. I will say, though, that there are a few of us on the left in the US that are willing to admit that the tendency towards maximalism on the 1st contrasted to the minimalist tendency on the 2nd does, indeed, indicate an inconsistency and reveals a bias. This is true in the example of the ACLU; although in other matters the ACLU has certainly defended the rights of (and cherished by) conservatives—a fact that conservatives tend to ignore.
In my case, this inconsistency isn’t worrisome as I dispute both the utilitarian and the essentialist basis for an assumed “right” to bear arms. I’d like the 2nd to be corrected but, short of that, a weakened interpretation suffices.
I will agree that the onus is on the liberals who do accept either an essentialist or utilitarian basis for the Bill of Rights in general to defend their lack of zeal in defending the 2nd. That probably includes me (as I defend the Bill of Rights on a utilitarian basis), but I do so by simply disagreeing with the positive evaluation of the utility of a right to bear arms.
Keith, there is no onus whatsoever on the ACLU, which was the topic of this thread. They’ve done far, far more work defending the rights of people they despise than any of us have.
dedman,
I wasn’t arguing about the Second Amendment itself so much as the way you phrased your take on it -
‘There’s no question that the Framers intended to bestow a personal right.’ ‘No question’ - that’s a pretty strong claim, that’s all.
“The ACLU is the most fascist organization I have seen in decades. They want to tell you how to live. They don’t want to abide by the Constitution. They want to go AROUND the Constitution. They’re intellectual fascists. And they use the courts as their Panzer divisions.”
Hyperbolic but his major point (that the ACLU is not really about the Constitution and uses the courts to infringe on the rights of others) is certainly true. The ACLU is very much anti-liberty when it comes to matters such as freedom of association or freedom of religion (so long as the religion is of a Christian persuasion). Others have pointed out their lukewarm support for gun rights (although this may vary between chapters) and I do not believe they have been consistent in defending freedom of contract and property rights either. In addition, they have been notorious supporters of State-mandated racial discrimination visa vi “affirmative action.” In which case they are no more or less principled than any other leftist special interest group who falsely claims to be acting for some “public interest.”
thorley, that was the most naziistic post I’ve ever seen in my life, and you didn’t substantiate any of your sweeping characterizations (“anti liberty [for] Christians,” etc.)
Now you can’t deny that my “major contention” was correct, despite whatever “hyperbole” might have been present.
Ophelia,
I disagree with your first post — I entirely buy O’Reillys contention that it was unfair to ask him tough question but go easy on Franken.
Your justification is that Franken is a nice guy while O’Reilly is often pretty rude. But Franken is not at all nice — his books are filled with unfair ad hominem attacks (Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot).
Franken justifies this by claiming that his books are works of political satire. Calling Rush Limbaugh a big fat idiot is OK because his book is supposed to ridicule our modern political environment and the sharp attacks that permeate it. However, the actual books are not satirical at all; maybe a tenth of the material in them could be legitemately classified as satire. The rest is simple political advocacy — interspersed with (pretty funny) jokes here and there.
Anyway, I am not a conservative and I do think Limbaugh is an idiot — but I also listened to the Franken and O’Reilly interviews and was stunned by the difference in tone — especially given as it was Franken who began this whole affair by making accusations against O’Reilly in his book. Sholdnt Franken be the one held to higher scrutiny?
Uh, Pierre, note Ophelia’s caveat: “at least on [the] air.”
À Gauche
Jeremy Alder
Amaravati
Anggarrgoon
Audhumlan Conspiracy
H.E. Baber
Philip Blosser
Paul Broderick
Matt Brown
Diana Buccafurni
Brandon Butler
Keith Burgess-Jackson
Certain Doubts
David Chalmers
Noam Chomsky
The Conservative Philosopher
Desert Landscapes
Denis Dutton
David Efird
Karl Elliott
David Estlund
Experimental Philosophy
Fake Barn County
Kai von Fintel
Russell Arben Fox
Garden of Forking Paths
Roger Gathman
Michael Green
Scott Hagaman
Helen Habermann
David Hildebrand
John Holbo
Christopher Grau
Jonathan Ichikawa
Tom Irish
Michelle Jenkins
Adam Kotsko
Barry Lam
Language Hat
Language Log
Christian Lee
Brian Leiter
Stephen Lenhart
Clayton Littlejohn
Roderick T. Long
Joshua Macy
Mad Grad
Jonathan Martin
Matthew McGrattan
Marc Moffett
Geoffrey Nunberg
Orange Philosophy
Philosophy Carnival
Philosophy, et cetera
Philosophy of Art
Douglas Portmore
Philosophy from the 617 (moribund)
Jeremy Pierce
Punishment Theory
Geoff Pynn
Timothy Quigley (moribund?)
Conor Roddy
Sappho's Breathing
Anders Schoubye
Wolfgang Schwartz
Scribo
Michael Sevel
Tom Stoneham (moribund)
Adam Swenson
Peter Suber
Eddie Thomas
Joe Ulatowski
Bruce Umbaugh
What is the name ...
Matt Weiner
Will Wilkinson
Jessica Wilson
Young Hegelian
Richard Zach
Psychology
Donyell Coleman
Deborah Frisch
Milt Rosenberg
Tom Stafford
Law
Ann Althouse
Stephen Bainbridge
Jack Balkin
Douglass A. Berman
Francesca Bignami
BlunkettWatch
Jack Bogdanski
Paul L. Caron
Conglomerate
Jeff Cooper
Disability Law
Displacement of Concepts
Wayne Eastman
Eric Fink
Victor Fleischer (on hiatus)
Peter Friedman
Michael Froomkin
Bernard Hibbitts
Walter Hutchens
InstaPundit
Andis Kaulins
Lawmeme
Edward Lee
Karl-Friedrich Lenz
Larry Lessig
Mirror of Justice
Eric Muller
Nathan Oman
Opinio Juris
John Palfrey
Ken Parish
Punishment Theory
Larry Ribstein
The Right Coast
D. Gordon Smith
Lawrence Solum
Peter Tillers
Transatlantic Assembly
Lawrence Velvel
David Wagner
Kim Weatherall
Yale Constitution Society
Tun Yin
History
Blogenspiel
Timothy Burke
Rebunk
Naomi Chana
Chapati Mystery
Cliopatria
Juan Cole
Cranky Professor
Greg Daly
James Davila
Sherman Dorn
Michael Drout
Frog in a Well
Frogs and Ravens
Early Modern Notes
Evan Garcia
George Mason History bloggers
Ghost in the Machine
Rebecca Goetz
Invisible Adjunct (inactive)
Jason Kuznicki
Konrad Mitchell Lawson
Danny Loss
Liberty and Power
Danny Loss
Ether MacAllum Stewart
Pam Mack
Heather Mathews
James Meadway
Medieval Studies
H.D. Miller
Caleb McDaniel
Marc Mulholland
Received Ideas
Renaissance Weblog
Nathaniel Robinson
Jacob Remes (moribund?)
Christopher Sheil
Red Ted
Time Travelling Is Easy
Brian Ulrich
Shana Worthen
Computers/media/communication
Lauren Andreacchi (moribund)
Eric Behrens
Joseph Bosco
Danah Boyd
David Brake
Collin Brooke
Maximilian Dornseif (moribund)
Jeff Erickson
Ed Felten
Lance Fortnow
Louise Ferguson
Anne Galloway
Jason Gallo
Josh Greenberg
Alex Halavais
Sariel Har-Peled
Tracy Kennedy
Tim Lambert
Liz Lawley
Michael O'Foghlu
Jose Luis Orihuela (moribund)
Alex Pang
Sebastian Paquet
Fernando Pereira
Pink Bunny of Battle
Ranting Professors
Jay Rosen
Ken Rufo
Douglas Rushkoff
Vika Safrin
Rob Schaap (Blogorrhoea)
Frank Schaap
Robert A. Stewart
Suresh Venkatasubramanian
Ray Trygstad
Jill Walker
Phil Windley
Siva Vaidahyanathan
Anthropology
Kerim Friedman
Alex Golub
Martijn de Koning
Nicholas Packwood
Geography
Stentor Danielson
Benjamin Heumann
Scott Whitlock
Education
Edward Bilodeau
Jenny D.
Richard Kahn
Progressive Teachers
Kelvin Thompson (defunct?)
Mark Byron
Business administration
Michael Watkins (moribund)
Literature, language, culture
Mike Arnzen
Brandon Barr
Michael Berube
The Blogora
Colin Brayton
John Bruce
Miriam Burstein
Chris Cagle
Jean Chu
Hans Coppens
Tyler Curtain
Cultural Revolution
Terry Dean
Joseph Duemer
Flaschenpost
Kathleen Fitzpatrick
Jonathan Goodwin
Rachael Groner
Alison Hale
Household Opera
Dennis Jerz
Jason Jones
Miriam Jones
Matthew Kirschenbaum
Steven Krause
Lilliputian Lilith
Catherine Liu
John Lovas
Gerald Lucas
Making Contact
Barry Mauer
Erin O'Connor
Print Culture
Clancy Ratcliff
Matthias Rip
A.G. Rud
Amardeep Singh
Steve Shaviro
Thanks ... Zombie
Vera Tobin
Chuck Tryon
University Diaries
Classics
Michael Hendry
David Meadows
Religion
AKM Adam
Ryan Overbey
Telford Work (moribund)
Library Science
Norma Bruce
Music
Kyle Gann
ionarts
Tim Rutherford-Johnson
Greg Sandow
Scott Spiegelberg
Biology/Medicine
Pradeep Atluri
Bloviator
Anthony Cox
Susan Ferrari (moribund)
Amy Greenwood
La Di Da
John M. Lynch
Charles Murtaugh (moribund)
Paul Z. Myers
Respectful of Otters
Josh Rosenau
Universal Acid
Amity Wilczek (moribund)
Theodore Wong (moribund)
Physics/Applied Physics
Trish Amuntrud
Sean Carroll
Jacques Distler
Stephen Hsu
Irascible Professor
Andrew Jaffe
Michael Nielsen
Chad Orzel
String Coffee Table
Math/Statistics
Dead Parrots
Andrew Gelman
Christopher Genovese
Moment, Linger on
Jason Rosenhouse
Vlorbik
Peter Woit
Complex Systems
Petter Holme
Luis Rocha
Cosma Shalizi
Bill Tozier
Chemistry
"Keneth Miles"
Engineering
Zack Amjal
Chris Hall
University Administration
Frank Admissions (moribund?)
Architecture/Urban development
City Comforts (urban planning)
Unfolio
Panchromatica
Earth Sciences
Our Take
Who Knows?
Bitch Ph.D.
Just Tenured
Playing School
Professor Goose
This Academic Life
Other sources of information
Arts and Letters Daily
Boston Review
Imprints
Political Theory Daily Review
Science and Technology Daily Review