Even when he is on vacation, the No-spinster is quite the oxybillron. Not only did Billy go away, so did his Washington D.C. radio show.
Though his words couldn't be heard this week they certainly could be read and if there be anyone out there who feels that Bill O'Reilly needs to be silenced, one needs only to read this week's Peabody Award-winning column, "Avoiding The Jihad," as evidence that he and his spin-o-rific logic needs to heard by any straight-thinking person so that you can fully understand that the man is a comedy genius.
Robert Klein would be rolling over in his grave if he were dead and chosen not to be cremated.
To make this all the more personal, Bill's column appears in Sunday's (7/9) L.A. Daily News opinion page #3, while my column appears on page #1 and #3. Here's the rub. Mine is typically a spoof-ridden column, and when any of it falls on the same page with Bill's, readers have a difficult time deciding which of the two is supposed to be a joke. It's unfair to the reader, it's unfair to me and ultimately, it's unfair to Bill. For some readers might think Bill is serious, not meaning to be funny and they'll believe him to be a bumbling idiot whose train of logic fell off the track long before it got up to speed.
In this week's column (in the Daily News they headed it as "Media Downplays Terror") Bill attempts to once again hold NBC and the New York Times greatly responsible for tearing down the America we once knew before they started promoting terrorism.
"In fact, the biggest boost to the jihadists in America comes from the committed left-wing press," writes Fox's very own Albert Brooks.
Read this next part about the Times' culpability carefully. See if you can find where the Times actually aid the terrorists. Really, it's a hoot. Albeit undermining the troops.
"However, a Times "analysis" piece written by Alan Cowell contained this gem: "[Prime Minister] Brown played down the threat, treating the episodes as a crime rather than a threat to civilization. Yet, his minimalist approach seemed to strike a reassuring chord with Britons, many of whom had expressed fatigue with [Tony] Blair's apocalyptic view of terrorism."
Give up? Let Bill help out.
That's right, we can't be having any dim views of worldwide terror killings, can we?
Didja see that? Didja see how the Times telling of what Briton's Prime Minister thought "boosted the terrorists?"
If you need any more help to nail down Bill's camaraderie with The Firesign Theater meets The Credibility Gap meets Monty Python meets...um...I don't know...Andy Kindler?...read what Bill wrote of what his whipping network, NBC, did to the Folks™.
"Elements at NBC News, which has become the most liberal of the three network news organizations, also attempted to diminish the London story. One NBC guest actually said this: "You have a non-event in London, and we're going to battle quarters and beginning to give the old hairy eyeball to every Muslim."
Omigawd. The NBC element that diminished the event was that they had a guest who said something Bill found event-diminishing. There was nothing, absolutely nothing, to build his case, yet he was able to turn it around and make himself the easy target of ridicule. Take that, Professor Irwin Corey!
But here's where I think it gets dicey. I'm thinking that Bill must have meant that as part as a spoof. Otherwise he was saying that NBC (though he never names the show) is not only responsible for a guest's (oh, and he never names the guest) comments, but by the guest making the comment triggered NBC's support for the jihadists. Not just wacky. Brilliant...I think. Almost as brilliant as saying that a blog-site is responsible for what the an outside person comments to what was written on the blog. Certainly no other broadcast Lord of Loud would risk advancing that kind of crazy notion. See. That's got to be Bill just waxing satirical...the nut.
But here's where I think it gets dicey. I'm thinking that Bill must have meant that as part as a spoof. Otherwise he was saying that NBC (though he never names the show) is not only responsible for a guest's (oh, and he never names the guest) comments, but by the guest making the comment triggered NBC's support for the jihadists. Not just wacky. Brilliant...I think. Almost as brilliant as saying that a blog-site is responsible for what the an outside person comments to what was written on the blog. Certainly no other broadcast Lord of Loud would risk advancing that kind of crazy notion. See. That's got to be Bill just waxing satirical...the nut.
But then Bill went complete Andy Kaufman all over the page...
"I understand there are people in this world who do not want to acknowledge the murderous jihad and will not support aggressive action against it. Those people are wrong and, more importantly, they are dangerous. Sorry, New York Times and NBC News, global terrorism is no "crime threat." It's war."
"I understand there are people in this world who do not want to acknowledge the murderous jihad and will not support aggressive action against it. Those people are wrong and, more importantly, they are dangerous. Sorry, New York Times and NBC News, global terrorism is no "crime threat." It's war."
Sorry? Wow. Wait till Keith Olbermann gets a load of this. The unapologetic Man of La Foxa actually apologized to the New York Times and NBC? Or did he? You just don't know if he's serious. Andy's not dead. He just suited up as O'Reilly and is seeing how long he can pull it off.
At least I hope it's Andy. If not, Bill just reamed out the Times and NBC for something someone else said or thought. Then he apologizes to the Times and NBC for what he says they said that they didn't. Is he a comedy savant or just a good ole-fashioned village idiot who makes a living belittling his fans?
I'm not here to make that judgment. I'm just trying to figure out whether Bill is the dumb schmuck (that's like moonbat, just Jewisher) I've always thought he was...or do I have competition.
Steve Young is author of "Great Failures of the Extremely Successful" www.greatfailure.com
