sean hannity

I guess I forgive Dog. I mean, it’s not like he did something to me, but to himself and to black folks. There’s a lot to be said about how people learn to talk; their socialization. I’m sure Dog has always used the word nigger. He’s from a scumbag background (and I mean that in the most honest and least insulting of ways). On the other hand, it’s 2007 and anyone with a brain and a decent way of expressing morals should know that you come across as a racist asshole word like his.

Let’s face it, Dog’s just digging his hole deeper. On Hannity and Colmes the other night, fawning host Sean Hannity allowed him to get away with his garbage by bringing on his pastor, Greg Storey, who, being black, was able to absolve the bounty hunter of his racism.

I’m sure Dog’s not a racist in the segregationist, White Aryan Resistance, Ku Klux Klan way. I’m not so sure he’s not a dirtbag.

Storey confirmed this himself, describing his friend as “rough around the edges.”

What Storey didn’t address, at least to those of us willing to watch Hannity and Colmes (which is painful in itself) is regardless of whether or not Duane “Dog” Chapman uses the nigger word casually, the context in which he was caught using it was on in which he was essentially forbidding a family member to date a black woman because it would affect his career.

Either way, Dog will get some type of show back. After all, this is a nation that loves NASCAR and pro wrestling. I just feel sorry for the corpses at Mt. Vernon who have to lay in the ground next to him until the sun eats up the Earth.

I knew it, as soon as a woman I work with handed me the news story to read: Sean Hannity, ever the righteous person that he is, would be all over the leaked voice message left allegedly by Alec Baldwin to his 11-year-old daughter, Ireland.

“Shocking”, I believe is what Hannity called it. I call it quite normal. It’s not right to go off on a child that way or anyone for that matter, but certainly people do it all the time. No one is without their faults, Alec Baldwin isn’t and neither is Hannity.

But before I spin this one around on Hannity–whose show I’d avoided listening to for over two months until today–I want to put out the idea here that this may not be Alec Baldwin at all. It could be, but then again, it may not. Baldwin has a lot of enemies. He’s proven to be something of a pompous windbag and in a town filled with them–Hollywood–there’s a lot of revenge to be had. I can’t say I’d be surprised if it were Baldwin, but I’m not entirely certain it was him. Let’s not forget that this could be fodder for Hannity’s show or that of the Righteous Indignicator’s buddy Marc Lavin (sp.).

Now back to Hannity. Let’s not forget that Hannity supports at least two things that make him fundamentally hypocritical on the issue of Ireland Baldwin. The first is that he supports hitting children. He’ll call it spanking, but it’s not just that. Occassionally, Hannity likes to talk about how good it was that his father used to “straighten” him out. We’re talking about his father smacking the shit out of him. Let’s be honest, please. Grizzled people call up his show sometimes spouting off about the crazy liberal notion that hitting one’s children is detrimental to their relationship with them and Hannity takes their side. So, would Sean Hannity have a problem with Alec Baldwin flying to Los Angeles to “straighten” his 11-year-old daughter out? Only because it give him ratings to do so. I’m sure some of his biggest listeners beat their kids and call it spanking or discipline occassionally.

The second thing Hannity supports that makes him a hypocrite of the first order is the United States’ use of force in Iraq. Okay, for those of you who read this blog, you certainly wonder how I can tie the two together. I can and I will: How does one claim to support the sanctity of children when he has supported policies that have lead to the deaths of many children by aerial bombings? Not really sure I follow Hannity on that one.

A family therapist on Hannity’s show whom the host apparently thought would agree with him raised a good point, which is that Baldwin’s childish reaction may be a sign of his lack of maturity and abundance in narcissism but not an indicator that he does not love his daughter. Conversely, the therapist pointed out, Baldwin does come across as hurt, deeply wounded that his daughter would not return his calls.

I would never advocate for a person to relate to their kids in such a way but for Sean Hannity of all people, a man who supports state sanctioned murder and child hitting, to go after Alec Baldwin (if indeed the man on the other end of the phone was Alec Baldwin) for this is pretty sanctimonious.

I agree with the sentiments of Trey Parker and Matt Stone–creators of South Park and Team America: World Police–that Baldwin is a windbag and very pompous. He’s also likely what I call a “show liberal”, a person who has to show off his liberalism in a self-righteous, indignant manner. This is likely all true. But he also does good things too. Baldwin just provided free tuition to a poor girl who was deployed to Iraq with the Army. Although that doesn’t do much to end the war, it was a good gesture.

Meanwhile, Hannity will milk this one for what it’s worth, as he always does. The voice on the phone, screaming in frustration will get replayed on his radio show, Hannity and Colmes and Hannity’s America. If the voice turns out to be someone other than Baldwin, he may end up eating crow.

It seems as if the mankind is hurling towards the destruction at a faster rate each day. People remain willfully ignorant of the things in life that actually threaten our survival: CO2, nuclear proliferation, overpopulation and warfare. Objective analysis is met with derisive, incendiary, criticism and insults. Suddenly experts; scientists, researchers, doctors and the like are subject to insults and paranoia for expressing the profound but nevertheless accurate opinions that things as they are are not really benefiting our survival. Anything besides the merits of their argument becomes fodder for people who make a living off of trashing others.

Nothing offends my sense of fairness more than the fact that morons I’m sorry, I’m trying to be positive, foolish people, become experts on things for which they are either a: totally lacking in knowledge about or b: have a subjective pre-determined opinion on that upholds their livelihood. In other words, asking Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannity to give a fair analysis of the mounds of legitimate evidence for global warming caused by CO2 is probably not a good idea if you’re looking for a way of getting towards the truth.

Some day will we look back on ourselves and wonder why we blindly followed foolish people into a ditch? If we have conscience enough to recognize that, I suppose we will really hate ourselves. As water pours into our houses from flooding we’ll say, “Fuck, I shouldn’t have listened to Ann Coulter as a rational scientific source. ”

Will we listen to our voices of reason after the next terrorist attack against us and say, “Shit, Laura Ingraham was only speaking out of her ass when she said we could end terror by having a war with Iraq.”

I kinda hope not, so that way we wont be aware that all the while we were fucking ourselves.

This last weekend, Pope Benedict XVI told Easter celebrants at St. Peter’s Square that the war in Iraq was a futile mess. This isn’t the Pope’s first statement as such. Being a big believer in collective security and global cooperation, Cardinal Ratzinger spoke out against the war two years before he was elevated to become the Bishop of Rome. Nevertheless, Benedict has a rational viewpoint on the war which he has expressed. He has a religious viewpoint on the war which he has expressed as well. But he’s not a Hollywood guy, not a musician or an athlete, so it’s unlikely anyone will turn on him. He represents very conservative interests too. We wont hear Michelle Malkin calling him a moonbat anytime soon, which is the right wing insult it seems to be hurled at anyone with a point lately.

Is Benedict at filthy hippie? I hardly think so. Just because he is Pope doesn’t make his opinion sacrosanct, but let’s face it, this is a very smart man who has spent so much of his life in academia. He has studied the European Union and has a knowledge of how things work in the world, certainly much more than Jonah Goldberg or any other chickenhawk out there. I haven’t heard the hue and cry about Benedict’s opposition to the war yet from Hannity or O’Reilly. They don’t have the guts to take him on. Not that Benedict would have to defend himself, but I’m sure many Catholics would take umbrage with these guys attacking him.

I wrote something that was acidic towards Michelle Malkin, the syndicated rightwing columnist who appears as an analyst on FOX News’ Hannity and Colmes as well as the O’Reilly Factor and any other show that stoops to believe she is an expert on anything besides saying shocking things meant to galvanize conservatives or anger wussy liberals. After reading it, I decided to erase it because in my life, time is precious and to devote that much energy doesn’t really do me well. Of course, I am spending additional time and expending additional energy to create a nicer blog entry about her, but I think as far as karma is concerned, that’s the best thing that I can do right now.

Yesterday, I watched this video on Youtube. In short, it’s a segment from the online show Hot Air (go find the link yourself!).  During the segment, Malkin runs down anti-war allstar Cindy Sheehan’s fast for peace, which occured last July.

Naturally, aiming for the lowest common denominator, Malkin does nothing to argue on the merits of Sheehan’s objection to the war in Iraq, and instead shocks us with footage of her eating a sub, having smoothies and ice cream inside a coffee. Here are some screen shots:


During his Easter Sunday address to thousands of Catholic faithful, our Pope, Benedict XVI, mentioned the futility of the ongoing war in Iraq. I have provided a news story about the pontiff’s address. Pope Benedict has been a vocal critic of the war since his days as Cardinal. Benedict called into the question the morality of preventative or preemptive war and has caught the ire of many people for that. I’m proud that my Pope, like his predecessor, John Paul II, can speak strongly on the matter in Iraq. All Christians–even Protestants and Orthodox–should be grateful that there are Christian leaders throughout the world who are willing to speak up on this matter so bluntly. God Bless us all this year and thank you Benedict for your words. I only wonder why so-called conservatives such as Sean Hannity and Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh haven’t turned on this guy. The second a celebrity speaks out against the war they’re trashed. What about the leader of the largest Christian body in the world? The thing is, these men are cowards. None could hold a candle to the decency and integrity of Il Papa. On this day of the Resurrection (sp.), I’m proud to call Benedict my Pope.

Pope: ‘Nothing positive’ from Iraq

By FRANCES D’EMILIO, Associated Press Writer1 hour, 30 minutes ago

In an Easter litany of the world’s suffering, Pope Benedict XVI lamented that “nothing positive” is happening in Iraq and decried the unrest in Afghanistan and bloodshed in Africa and Asia.

“How many wounds, how much suffering there is in the world,” the pontiff told tens of thousands gathered Sunday at St. Peter’s Square on what is Christianity’s most joyful feast day.

Benedict, delivering his traditional “Urbi et Orbi” Easter address from the central balcony of St. Peter’s Basilica, read out a long list of troubling current events, saying he was thinking of the “terrorism and kidnapping of people, of the thousand faces of violence which some people attempt to justify in the name of religion, of contempt for life, of the violation of human rights and the exploitation of persons.”

“Afghanistan is marked by growing unrest and instability,” Benedict said. “In the Middle East, besides some signs of hope in the dialogue between Israel and the Palestinian Authority, nothing positive comes from Iraq, torn apart by continual slaughter as the civil population flees.”

He singled out what he called the “catastrophic, and sad to say, underestimated humanitarian situation” in Darfur as well as other African places of suffering, including violence and looting in Congo, fighting in Somalia — which, he said, drove away the prospect of peace — and the “grievous crisis” in Zimbabwe, marked by crackdowns on dissidents, a disastrous economy and severe corruption.


More than four years after the invasion of Iraq and subsequent occupation of a formerly sovereign–albeit corrupt and dictatorial nation–the United States has lost more than 3,100 soldiers, marines, airmen and sailors in the conflict. Compared to the numbers of my father and grandfather’s conflicts, Vietnam and World War II respectively, the totals of American dead are much less. In comparison to the the combined combatant deaths of the American Civil War (1861-65), the amount of armed forces personnel is miniscule, less than 1 percent, in fact.

Taken into consideration that the total loss of American life in Iraq, which includes armed forces personnel, private contractors, public officials and journalists,  is relatively low, Americans who support the war tend to write off the sacrafice that is paid in life.

On their syndicated radio programs, both Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity have used the comparatively low armed forces deaths as a rebuke towards the anti-war movement.

Limbaugh cites scurilous statistics to conclude that an Army soldier is safer in Baghdad than he or she is in the streets of crime-plauged American cities such as Los Angeles and Philadelphia.

Not only does this reasoning cheat Americans of a fair analysis of the War in Iraq, it is also wholly irrelevant. Our is a nation based upon the Enlightenment principles of reason and intellect, not simply emotion. Our joy and tears should take a back seat to the objective measurement of cost and benefit.

Wars are not fought with the consideration of the soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines fighting them, but of the compelling national interest that would motivate Congress to pay to send people into harm’s way–the Constitution in particular.

As long as a war in Iraq is fought the troops will and must be a consideration. The problem is however, that both sides treat armed forces personnel like children and until they stop doing that an objective analysis of the war and its costs will scarcely be considered.