THIS MODERN WORLD

O’Reilly, last night, with minister and motivational author Joel Osteen:

O’Reilly: I want you to counsel me, pastor…I’m sitting here, I’m fighting this ferocious battle against people at this juncture who want to change America, all right? They want to change it to de-emphasize religion, they want a country like Sweden where less than ten percent of the population goes to church. Now I believe the Founding Fathers wanted religion in the public marketplace as a behavior deterrent because they knew they couldn’t control the population, and they felt that a faith-based population would be more likely to behave. Very practical.

So I’m fighting against these secularists and they’re sliming me, they’re smearing me. Okay? So I can’t go around like you with a happy face all the time, I gotta hit these people right between the eyes. I gotta have negative thoughts because they’re bad people and I’m fighting. It’s like a war. So I’m not really doing what you advise, am I?

Osteen: Well I don’t know if that’s true, Bill. You’re doing what God’s called you to do, and I’m doing what God’s called me to do, but I mean, there’s going to be negative things in life. The Bible says to do good to your enemies, but then there’s other times when you gotta stand strong and fight the good fight and I think that’s what you’re doing out there every week. My calling is to encourage people and give them hope, but I think we all have different callings.

O’Reilly: Okay, so I’m not doing anything wrong in your estimation? Because I have to dwell on the negative an awful lot here, pastor. You know, I’m not skipping in to the Factor every day. I’m reading this stuff, and I know it’s harmful, and I know it’s bad, and I’m going, oh, I’m gonna get this S.O.B. I don’t know if that stacks up.

Osteen: Well I don’t know, I wouldn’t say you’re doing anything wrong, you know what you’re doing, if it’s what God’s calling —

O’Reilly: I don’t know if God’s calling me. I’m taking a lot of punishment here. Sometimes I’d like to say, Michael the archangel, get down here and kick a little butt with me, you know? It’d be helpful, because I’m taking a lot of punishment, so is my family. I mean we are taking a lot — of — guff. And it’s garbage.

So what I’m trying to get across to you is, you are putting out a message of hope, and I respect that. And you are putting out a message, think postive, and I respect that. But those messages, hope and positive thinking, don’t win wars. They don’t.

— snip —

Osteen: …you can’t change it, I mean, can you change people, not saying stuff bad about you? I don’t know.

O’Reilly (smiling): No, I can’t, unless I execute them, which would be against everything we both stand for. Pastor, I want to wish you merry Christmas…

My friend Greg at the Talent Show:

Okay, this whole “Happy Holidays” jihad is confusing me. As far as I can remember, people have been saying “HH” for many, many years now. Every time I’ve heard it, regardless of who’s speaking it, I’ve always interpreted it as an act of kindness that’s meant to imply “I know we may have different beliefs, but I hope your celebration is a happy one.” Of course, with New Years in the mix, it’s more than a pleasant inter-faith greeting. “Happy Holidays” is a nice, sincere expression of the whole season.

For a few humbugs out there, however, “Happy Holidays” has been stripped of its goodness and turned into a hideous attack on Christmas. Did you think you were being kind and inclusionary in your seasons greeting? Well, you were wrong! Little did you know that you were actually saying “Up yours, baby Jesus”. Okay, I’m exaggerating here, but not by much.

Yes. Bill O’Reilly is actually playing a variation on Scrooge this Christmas — the cranky old man determined to ruin everyone’s holiday. The twist is, in the O’Reilly Christmas Carol, Scrooge loves Christmas and spends all day harranguing Bob Cratchit for not loving Christmas as much as he, Ebenezer O’Reilly, does.

UPDATE: incidentally, why does O’Reilly’s boss hate Christmas?

What Kos said:

The Democrats need to offer an alternative agenda over the next four years. It won’t be enacted, so they can shoot for the moon. The hell with good policy, make proposals that sound great. The GOP used flag burning and gay marriage to rally their side. We can find equivalents. Don’t worry about them becoming law, because they won’t. Worry about branding the party and placing every bit of bad news (and there will be plenty) squarely at the feet of the party that controls all levers of government.

We need to make the GOP radioactive. Their incompetence is providing the ammunition. It is our job to wield it. Remember, they control everything. We don’t need to be bipartisan. We don’t need to work with them for them to pass their agenda. So we offer up clear alternatives to everything they propose. We have to be aggressive.

We have nothing to lose. Being in the minority is being in the minority. Yet we have much to gain.

The documents the ACLU secured with a FOIA request are the subject of an article in the Times.

Of course, the Times somehow neglects to mention the document referencing Bush’s direct knowledge and approval of torture.

That darn liberal media.

NEW YORK — A document released for the first time today by the American Civil Liberties Union suggests that President Bush issued an Executive Order authorizing the use of inhumane interrogation methods against detainees in Iraq. Also released by the ACLU today are a slew of other records including a December 2003 FBI e-mail that characterizes methods used by the Defense Department as “torture” and a June 2004 “Urgent Report” to the Director of the FBI that raises concerns that abuse of detainees is being covered up.

“These documents raise grave questions about where the blame for widespread detainee abuse ultimately rests,” said ACLU Executive Director Anthony D. Romero. “Top government officials can no longer hide from public scrutiny by pointing the finger at a few low-ranking soldiers.”

The documents were obtained after the ACLU and other public interest organizations filed a lawsuit against the government for failing to respond to a Freedom of Information Act request.

The two-page e-mail that references an Executive Order states that the President directly authorized interrogation techniques including sleep deprivation, stress positions, the use of military dogs, and “sensory deprivation through the use of hoods, etc.” The ACLU is urging the White House to confirm or deny the existence of such an order and immediately to release the order if it exists. The FBI e-mail, which was sent in May 2004 from “On Scene Commander — Baghdad” to a handful of senior FBI officials, notes that the FBI has prohibited its agents from employing the techniques that the President is said to have authorized.

Another e-mail, dated December 2003, describes an incident in which Defense Department interrogators at Guantánamo Bay impersonated FBI agents while using “torture techniques” against a detainee. The e-mail concludes “If this detainee is ever released or his story made public in any way, DOD interrogators will not be held accountable because these torture techniques were done [sic] the ‘FBI’ interrogators. The FBI will [sic] left holding the bag before the public.”

More.

A few bad apples…