If Lars can go do a remote from Pendleton, O'Reilly can do one from Darfur!

So...we're going to pay for a millionaire to go see the genocide of people he doesn't care about to see on his own...so he can come back and exhibit staged outrage that likely diverts blame from true causes...to an audience that also doesn't care, and is likely indirectly funding the bloodshed through a chain of US-fronted arms sales, aid, oil purchases from Arab sympathizers, etc whose money ultimately winds up in the hands of the killers.

First I would suggest that we accomplish the same outcome by sending O'Reilly on a tour of this country: he doesn't care about the people, he diverts attention from real causes of real problems, and the people who watch him don't care and are content to subsidize their own destruction.

But second, your charity case is going to turn O'Reilly into a brief force for good? Sounds like a pretty naive approach. He only barks when the master says so. Your 10-spot is worthless unless someone at the top makes money by having Americans outraged over this. Now, if you were the CIA and you wanted to increase weapons sales to one of the sides in Darfur, I could see how finding some dupe like Kristof and guilt tripping some dumb West Coast liberals would make perfect sense.

Kristof is just trying to bring more attention to the situation in Darfur, and this is a clever way of doing it.

That being said, I doubt anything will change in Daruf. But in 10 years, someone will make a movie about the genocide that went on and how the world just sat by and let the murders happen. The movie will win an Oscar for Best Picture, Americans will wring their hands thinking, "Never Again. This will never happen again."

But it will.

So, let me get this right. O'Reiley doesn't care about anyone?
Jassica's Law must be pretty much a nuthin' then. Goodness gracious we wouldn't want to actually punish someone who rapes a child under 12 now would we?
Judge Cashman in Vermont, who gives a man 60 days in treatment for raping a little girl for 4 years, even shared her with a friend - how nice, sharing... O'Reiley brought that to the public's attention. If not for him no one except those in Vermont would have heard about it.
O'Reiley, who was outraged at the mismanagement of the response after Katrina, and of the even worse management of the Army Corps. of Engineer money that had been spent in Louisiana over the past decade. BTW LA received more money for Corps. projects than any other state in the country one year, I don't remember which year, but the money was spent on all sorts of projects supported by LA's congressmen/women and suprise, suprise, Cathleen Blanco, LA's Democrat Governer, instead of shoring up the levies in New Orleans.

Do you mean that Bill O'Reiley?
We all have issues that we care about and prioritize. Bill has his, and I have mine, and you have yours. They are all different, although some are closer than others, but to say that if someone doesn't agree with yours - in whole or in part - they must be insensitive or uncaring is ridiculous.
Bill talked about Darfur during the week. He outlined why he can't go. So he's doing the best thing he can do - bringing it up as a topic of discussion as much as he can.
He's doing the same thing that your bog here is doing Mr. Bogdanski - bringing to light issues that propably wouldn't be covered, or at least wouldn't be discussed, in the mainstream media, either through outright bias, or lack of air time/page space. O'Reiley doesn't generally get to go on remotes. He takes a day here and there, but that's it.
If it weren't for people like you, Blue Oregon, other politically oriented blogs, and yes, Lars, O'Reiley, Mark and Dave, Tony Snow, Krupp, and most of the crew on Air America - horrors, I even agree with Randy on occassion, I just whish she wasn't such a bomb thrower because I know she can make logical arguments to support her position, I've heard her do it more than once - an awful lot of people like us would be at the mercy of rags like the Oregonian for information.

Justin - I think you're dead on, pardon the phrase. Look at the terrible things that have happened in the world in times past and that are happening in the present. The only way you can stop it is by - horrors - regeim change and hope to hell you get someone in who won't brutalize the people as bad as the last guy, get the people to rise up and hope that they don't put someone in who brutalizes them as bad as the last guy, or go in and occupy the place yourself, in shich case everyone else will say you ar brutalizing the people as bad as the last guy. I personally don't like options #1 or #3, and opption #2 is usually out unless someone goes in and 'helps' the people, which winds up being essentially option #1 with support for the new government in the form of opption #3.
I know that what's happening in Darfur is terrible, but what to do about it? I don't have an answer there - at least not one that's acceptable to me....

Now c'mon Joanne.
You know how the ideologues work. If you dont like the person, then whatever he says is always a "lie", or "60% crap" to quote a certain latenight host.
Hardcore ideologues dont like Oreilly because he is not right or left, and he uses facts to backup what he says. Why do you think he gets crap from people on both sides?
Oh, and most of the sheep who bitch about him dont actually watch or listen to his shows. They just get their "outrage" from something they read. You know, someone else's opinion, because they cant form one of their own.

I think he means this Bill O'Reilly. (NSFW)

O'Reilly is nothing but a name to me. I don't know why anybody cares what he says or does. He's just another celebrity.

I care as much about what Bono thinks as I do O'Reilly, which is nothing at all.

Late? Yes, 20 years is late and its all Bill's doing, but then so is global warming?

Joanne-

O'Reilly's priorities shift with the political landscape. When a majority of the daily news is bad for the GOP and the Pres'nit (which is like, a daily thing now), he tends to focus on blond hair/blue eyed abductees in Aruba and the sort. I see the same thing on Scarborough Country, Hannity & (token liberal), Tucker Carlson, Neil Cavuto, etc. I mean, he can sniff out cases of bad jail sentences in some Mayberry town, but GOD FORBID he hold the people with the most power accountable. How can you take him seriously until he does?

Moreover, I know that he doesn't actually believe half the sh*t he says... see. O'Liely used to have Dem tendencies. Guess what? So did Lars. But hey, the grass is always greener on the other side, right? At least the grass growing over the septic tank.

Hope you enjoy putting your political party ahead of the country.

Doesn't Kristof have something to do with the newspaper that regularly pumps up Air America and has totally ignored the Vermont travesty? And put the Abu Ghraib "warcrimes" on the front page eighty or ninety times while downplaying the Oil For Food crimes of the U.N. as well as the collusion of Russia, Germany and France with Sadam's regime. And ignores the calls for mandatory sentencing (Jessica's law) of pedophiles. It's very nice and noble that he has a pet project but perhaps he might exhibit some concern for the human rights of children in the U.S. Kristof appears to be just another neo-lib hack that takes off after anyone who is not in the lefty camp. But at least he'll have a long employment with the NYT.

"O'Reilly's priorities shift with the political landscape..."

Please TK, you and Jack should actually know what you're talking about before you spout this kind of nonsense. If you spent even just a little time listening to O'Reilly, you'd know he's a Populist. He's both equally reviled by both the far left and far right.

O'Reilly is successful because he represents a lot of the attitudes of American's who reside near the middle of the political spectrum. That's why he's so popular.

you and Jack should actually know what you're talking about before you spout

Enjoy your break.

This is just another example of the left thinking small. Can't we raise enough money to blast O'Reilly into the center of the sun?

"Hardcore ideologues dont like Oreilly because he is not right or left, and he uses facts to backup what he says."

I couldn't read any of the posts beyond this becasue I was too busy laughing hysterically.

Chris M-

Actually, I do tune into his show on occasion because it's like a train wreck.

For the record,it has been found that moderates who fancy themselves as "independents", actually DO sway with the political breeze... much more than folks on the fringes because they're typically not as well versed in politics. If O'Liely is indeed a centrist as you say, that would explain his political opportunism.

Just because he occasionally blasts the GOP leadership (and let's not kid ourselves, it's not that often) doesn't make him a populist, moderate or the sort. It's faux-populism, partly because his world is ruled by ratings. Oh yeah, he's looking out for us alright... He saved us from "THE WAR ON CHRISTMAS (TM)" (insert Fox News flag/cross graphic here)

Tastless Tattler - What's going on with that suit anyway? She still persuing it or what? I see that in the link you supplied the date on Andrea Mackris's complaint is October 13 2004. Was this ever settled? I thought that the statute of limitations on sexual harrassment was 90 days for criminal prosecution. I don't know what it is if you're filing a civil suit. I suppose I could do a Google search.

Jon - I am familiar with idealogues, but they are still opperating from a premis or a point of view. Some one will agree with some one will not. It would be nice, however, if they got their information from the horse's mouth so to speak. I can be a bit idealogical myself, especially when it comes to animal behavior or genetics, in particular when those subjects relate to horses....

TK - O'Reily's priorities do shift. Our priorities always shift, on a daily, weekly, yearly, etc. basis. The subjects of O'Reily's shows shift from day to day or week to week because if he talked about the same thing every day he'd loose his audience. I have various subjects that I'm passionate about, but even I can't talk about the same thing all day every day. O'Reily does hold the people in power accountable for the things he thinks they're doing wrong. I've heard him slam FEMA, Bush's immigration policy, etc., in addition to those on the left such as Howard Dean, Kathleen Blanco, and others.
As far as leaning to the left or the right politically, I would be suprised if he hadn't changed to one direction or the other over the course of his life. Few people don't.
I don't know what political party you think I am, but I'm a registered Democrat, registered that way when I was in highschool, voted for Carter - the first presidential election I ever had the honor to vote in, and I voted for Clinton - the first time around. I try to judge a person's suitability for a job as an elected official by what they themselves say and do, as well as other peoples' reactions to them.

That's what I like about O'Reily's show as well as so many others, and especially places like Jack's blog - and exchange of ideas directly from the people who are expressing them, not second hand. A very important exchange indeed....

If you ever watch O'Reilly (instead of listening how the left wing portraits him) you just MIGHT enjoy his emails at the end of his show. His email section often shows an email calling him a right wing whacko, followed by one calling him a left wing whacko in regards to the same story. When you tick off both the right wing and left wing nuts, you MUST be in the middle - course most nuts on either side aren't sure where the middle actually is.