ALL ABOUT THE COLLECTED "WORKS" OF BILL O'REILLY

When Bill O'Reilly is not being sued for sexual harassment by his female employees and when he’s not inviting terrorists to come and blow up major American cities and when he’s not lecturing former POW’s on the “effectiveness” of torture and when he’s not making not-so-veiled “lynching party” threats against the wife of a prominent Senator/Democratic Presidential hopeful of African-American descent and when he’s not making racial epithets against a Harlem restaurant and its clientele and when he’s not venomously attacking a grieving mother who’s lost her son to a war that he so orgasmically supports and when he’s not getting into pissing contests with celebrities over their charity work and when he’s not threatening the livelihood of some celebrity who he claims to be a “subversive influence” on children with one of his many insipid boycotts and when he’s not encouraging his superiors to file these absurdly frivolous lawsuits against those he don’t like and when he’s not belittling homeless Vets on his show, Bill O is finding new ways to make an A-Hole of himself. For instance, I saw the former illustrious Inside Edition host on Oprah Winfrey’s show back in October of 2006 touting his latest political tome shamelessly-titled Culture Warrior. In the book, and on Oprah’s show, Bill argued how (my paraphrasing) “moral relativism” was ruinous to our “culture” and our country. However, in Bill O’s first book the appropriately-titled The O’Reilly Factor, which is, of course, the name of his insipid show on Fox (Non) News, here is what Bill himself had to say—on pages 32 & 33, to be exact—on the subject of “culture” and how he felt that Americans—including, apparently, himself—should respond to it: “[T]he constant sex of TV and movies doesn’t get me all worked up about declining values and ready to mount a moral high horse. As advertisers know, they are giving us what we want. Those who are really upset are definitely in the minority; those who pretend to be upset are downright phonies. Both groups are perfectly free to change the channel to PBS, C-Span, or whatever—or read a book!” And here’s a quote taken from Bill O’s Playboy Interview published in their May 2002 issue when Bill was asked if he was “self-conscious” when he wrote the—and, no, I’m not making this up!—sex scenes for his novel Those Who Trespass (which, believe it or not, included one with a 15-year-old girl; so much for NOT engaging in "moral relativism," huh?) and is a quote I feel is pretty self-explanatory: “No, I’m a pretty uninhibited guy. It doesn’t seem that way, because I compartmentalize. My social life doesn’t have anything to do with my news career. I don’t blend the two.” As for what Mr. O’Reilly espouses on his show, during the September 23^rd, 2003 broadcast of The O’Reilly Factor, B.S. Bill, after kindly referring to his archenemy Al "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot" Franken as a “vicious” commentator, railed against those—i.e. “liberals”—who “poisoned civil debate” in this country and vowed to expose those who set out to “destroy” others reputations. On page 184 of his book The O’Reilly Factor, Bill kindly compares Rosie O’Donnell to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels (so much for not “poisoning civil debate,” huh?). Also in his book, B.S. Bill decrees the following—on page 48, to be exact—regarding the Gulf of Tonkin incident which, for those of you out there needing a history lesson, became the catalyst for America’s “war” in Vietnam: “Tell me I’m arrogant, but I know that this cock-and-bull story would not get by me on today’s The O’Reilly Factor—or on other cable shows and Internet magazines. There are too many of us today who are not paid lackeys of the establishment. And more than one of us would be on the ground within hours, getting the real story from the guys on both ships.” Now, the million-dollar question is, just where in the blessed hell was all of this fearless journalism when President Bush was making his unsubstantiated claims about so-called weapons of mass destruction which, of course, became the catalyst for his own ill-fated “war” in Iraq? Well, Bill? Countless times on his show, Bill has lamented about his lack of book reviews in the much-hallowed New York Times (even though every one of his insipid books have inexplicably made it onto the much-hallowed New York Times bestseller lists). Well, in recognition of his lack of book reviews in the NYT, here's a possible review the NYT could have printed: "A Bold Fresh Piece Of Humanity? Well, it's 'a bold fresh piece' of something!" Lastly, Bill O'Reilly wrote a, uh-hum, historical account of Abraham Lincoln's assassination titled Killing Lincoln that was reportedly, and I say "reportedly" since I have yet to read the damn thing, rife with SO many historical and/or factual errors that the book/movie Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter is probably more historically and/or factually accurate! Oh yeah, before I forget, Bill O'Reilly actually wrote a book aimed at children titled, appropriately-enough, The O'Reilly Factor For Kids. Can anyone say irony? A sidenote: Bill O'Reilly reportedly had the higher-ups at Fox (Non) News sue his nemesis Al Franken over his "Lying Liars" book because he reportedly "objected" to his picture on the cover, which, for anyone who has seen it, it's admittedly NOT a very flattering picture of Bill O. Anyway, a federal judge literally laughed this admittedly ridiculous lawsuit right out of his court, saying it was "wholly without merit," which, as some have surmised, ought to be the new "slogan" of Fox (Non) News!

GUILTY by Ann Coulter: A Review

 

 

Al Franken once said that what right-wing stalwart Ann Coulter did was, and I quote, political pornography. I agree. Ann Coulter has inexplicably made a "career" out of penning and/or espousing said political right-wing pornography. It seems like Ann puts out a book every year or two and each one seems to be just as outlandish as the one before it. And they all, of course, target the same thing: liberals, liberals and liberals as in "liberals are terrorists" or "liberals are traitors" or "liberals need to be taken out and shot" and, well, you get the picture, don't you? And, for those of you who think I'm actually kidding you about what Ann Coulter writes, in previous books she actually venomously lashed out against 9-11 widows (by calling them "harpies" and accused them of merrily profiting from their husbands's tragic deaths and urged them to pose for Playboy) and actually all but called for the assassination of then-President Bill Clinton (whom she attacks--besides, of course, liberals!--in every single one of her books). But, as outlandish as all those books are, I picked her book "Guilty" because I think she really puts her big Republican-ass-kissing foot in her big Republican-ass-kissing mouth. Subtitled "Liberal 'Victims' & Their Assault On America," Ann Coulter goes after mostly, well, everybody whom she feels has unjustly labeled themselves--you guessed it!--victims and . . . again, you get the picture, don't you? One of my, for lack of a better word, favorite parts of the book is where she devotes an entire chapter on those evil un-American "liberal" traitors/terrorists known as--that's right!--single mothers. Yes, ladies & gents, you heard right, SINGLE MOMS!!!! In the chapter titled "Victim Of A Crime? Thank A Single Mother!" or some such claptrap, Ann argues in her usual venomously outlandish way that pretty much ALL of crime committed in this country is a result of the perpetrators being "raised" by--wait for it!--SINGLE MOMS!!!! Ann's suggestion to wannabe single moms--whom Ann seems to especially loathe--is to (my paraphrasing) keeps their legs closed and DON'T procreate until they're--of course!--married to a man (again, of course!). Never mind the fact that Ann Coulter has 1) never been married herself (though she has been engaged a number of times, believe it or not!) and 2) SHE HAS NEVER HAD ANY CHILDREN OF HER OWN (and, yet, still feels that she can offer parental "advice" on the proper way for others--i.e. those "ungodly" liberal harlots!--to raise their little ones). And, in typical Ann Coulter fashion, she complains pages later in the book how the "liberal" media criticized Sarah Palin's teenaged daughter Bristol for being a, and I quote, "trollop" for--again, wait for it!--HAVING A CHILD OUT OF WEDLOCK!!!! (This kind of reminds me of when Ann stated in her previous book appropriately-titled Slander how she was sick & tired of "conservatives" like HER being likened to--and, again, I quote--"Nazis" and then pages later actually likened "liberal" media personality Katie Couric to Eve Braun. That's Hitler's girlfriend, for those of you not in the know.)  I would say some more about Ann Coulter and her insipid book(s), but, since I don't wish to give her anymore of the free publicity she so obviously craves, I believe I'll just end this "review" here, all right?

MERCY THOMPSON VS. JILL KISMET

Mercy Thompson
 

Jill Kismet

I'm a big fan of "urban fantasy" novels, i.e. novels featuring vampires, werewolves and other supernatural beings. Think the Twilight books (only much, much better!). My two favorite urban fantasy series would be the Mercy Thompson series written by author Patricia Briggs and the Jill Kismet series written by author Lilith Saintcrow. There are some differences and similarities between the two characters. For instance, Mercy Thompson is a shapeshifting coyote who works as a mechanic at a garage she bought from her former boss an old German Fae named Zee while Jill Kismet is a hellbreed hunter whose "powers" are enhanced by sorcery and a hellbreed scar put on her wrist by a usually double-crossing hellbreed named Perry at the request of her mentor Mikhail who was murdered by a Sorrows--i.e. a sort of female demon--whom he was having an affair with. Mercy had a past relationship with an older werewolf named Samuel while she was being raised by his father Bran's werewolf pack who winds up living with her in her trailer and then later becomes the "mate" of another werewolf an "alpha" named Adam who lives behind her trailer and Jill has a relationship with a Werecat--not exactly a werewolf--named Saul. (One thing that Adam and Saul share in common is that both of them, unlike Mercy and especially Jill, are pretty domesticated.) Mercy was raped by a scumbag named Tim while under the "influence" of Fae magic whom Mercy ends up killing and Jill was a teenaged prostitute who ends up killing her pimp before she meets and is subsequently trained by Mikhail. Mercy is "friends" with a vampire named Stefan and Jill is an "acquaintance" of hellbreed Perry's who's--pardon the pun!--hellbent on turning Jill into a full-blown hellbreed through his "pact" with her. (One major difference between Stefan and Perry is, while both are admittedly agents of evil/darkness, Stefan doesn't seem to revel in his evilness as Perry obviously does.) Both Mercy and Jill are fiercely loyal to those they love and/or care about and both tend to look before they leap, so to speak, which causes them both to get into some pretty sticky--and, of course, life-threatening--situations. Both women have training in the martial arts which tends to come in handy given how many sticky and/or life-threatening situations they get themselves into. Between Mercy Thompson and Jill Kismet, Mercy is perhaps more, shall we say, personable of the two. Of course, the question remains, who would win in a fight between Mercy and Jill? I would have to say Jill, although I would figure Mercy would give her a run for her money (and especially since Mercy would have some big-time back-up with her "mate" Adam's werewolf pack, although Jill would have some big-time back-up as well with her "mate" Saul and his fellow Werecats along with the other hellbreed hunters). Oh yeah, both book series are written from the first person points-of-view of Mercy and Jill. I believe I hit on all the main points of both series, but, if I left out anything about these particular book series, my sincerest apologies!

THE 50 SHADES OF EL JAMES

El James, for those of you who’ve been living under a rock this past year or so, is the author of the widely-popular “erotic” book series 50 Shades Of Grey. What started out as “fan fiction” for the Twilight books published on the Web has become a nationwide and even a worldwide phenomenon. The, uh-hum, plot of the books is basically this: a rich guy engages in kinky sex games with a “virginal” woman. That’s pretty much it, yet, for some reason, these books have caught on with the--mostly female--book-buying audience. I admit, I have yet to read the books save for the excerpts in the--mostly negative--book reviews I’ve read about the book. Although this book has sold in the millions of copies, book critics by and large have pretty much panned the books (my own personal critique of the book came from an article in Playboy which called the book “mommy porn”). But, judging from what little I’ve read of the book, I can’t understand what the big deal is. I mean, this isn’t the first time this particular subject matter has been mined before in literature; like, for instance, Anne Rice wrote a series of similarly-themed “erotic” books years before written under the rather weird pen name of A.N. Roquelaure that were arguably better-written than the 50 Shades Of Grey books (and before Anne there was Judy Blume--yes, the children’s book author--who wrote about bored women seeking sexual adventure/fulfillment). I myself have written--and published--books with a similar “erotic” theme (and frustratingly weren‘t nearly as successful). So, again, the question remains why has the 50 Shades Of Grey books caught on so much? As for whether these books are “erotica” or hardcore porn, when Miss James was asked this very question by Barbra Walters, she responded, after laughing for a moment, that it was a “romance” story. Because, you know, nothing spells “romance” like whips & chains & anal beads! By the way, the word pornography, as defined in Webster’s dictionary, means anything--hence the word ANYTHING--that is intended to arouse sexual desire (and I believe the 50 Shades Of Grey books qualifies, don‘t you?). And, for me, the REAL difference between "erotica" and so-called porn is that "erotica" has a few more euphemisms for the naughty parts. Hope that clears THAT up for ya!