Why Glenn Beck Needs to Be Repeatedly Cock-Punched (Apocalypse Edition):
Here's how you know that contemporary conservatism is done as a movement: for the last couple of weeks, Bill O'Reilly, on his Fox "news" show (and chromosonal abnormality), The O'Reilly Factor, hosted Glenn Beck, the host of his new Fox "news" show cleverly named Beck, a word that seemingly requires an "l" in it. In what should have been a summit of media bugfuckery the likes of which haven't been seen since William F. Buckley hosted Margaret Thatcher on Firing Line, an occasion that ended with the two of them madly balling in front of a live audience that applauded each thrust and moan in an episode that's been hidden in a deep pit at Yale since it was first aired, Bill O'Reilly came across as the rational one.

It's sort of like when you're faced with a choice between fucking a syphilitic manwhore or fucking a syphilitic chimp. Basically, you're better off not fucking at all, but, if pressed, you'll probably leave with your nuts still attached if you go with the manwhore. Either way, though, you're getting the syph.

Beck has decided that he's Nostradamus without the charm. He's running around various Fox "news" programs and declaring that revolution is a-comin' if the United States continues on its road to that old chimeric enemy, Socialism. O'Reilly takes the role of the guy who's accepted that the election happened and now needs to deal with it. Beck, on the other hand, has decided that we're in end times, motherfuckers, and it's time to get the muskets ready.

On February 13, O'Reilly spent much of his time just trying to talk Beck off the ledge. On the stimulus bill, he said to Beck, "So, how much longer do you complain about something that's going to happen?" And regarding the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine, O'Reilly said, "[T]his is so stupid and it's never going to happen."

However, Beck would have none of it. He was gonna leap, and he wants all those other buffalo and lemmings and other cliff-leaping animals to take the plunge with him: "I'm full -- I'm full-fledged crazy nuts. You know it, and I know it. So here it is. This is what's coming, America. Depression and revolution. That's what's coming." And, that, good people of the USA, is how you get your own Fox show.

Then, last Friday, in the wake of his program on how he thinks we're all just so very fucked, Beck was back with O'Reilly. And, again, the role of "rational" went to O'Reilly, who explained Barack Obama's mortgage proposal to Beck: "[W]hat the Obama administration is trying to do is say, 'Look. We're going to try to stabilize this whole thing, yes, by giving irresponsible people a break. But it's for the greater good.'"

In a line for the ages, Beck retorted, "When did we go into a country where it's all for the greater good? When did we join -- when did we sign up to be part of the Borg? We are a country built up of individuals and individuals that need to have personal responsibility." You got that? You want there to be "greater good," you're a fuckin' pod person, you godforsaken tools. For Beck, we're just a bunch of frontier people trying to keep the Apache from raping our daughters. Has he ever visited a city?

This was followed by a journey into Beck's abyss. Get a friend and read this as a little comedy sketch that ends with Glenn Beck promising Bill O'Reilly's death:
BECK: I'm not -- Bill, I'm not looking for a revolution.

O'REILLY: But you're predicting it.

BECK: Well, wait a minute. Is that a problem? Is it a problem to point out -- wait a minute, is it a problem to point out Bill O'Reilly -- is it a problem. You get no food from me. You come knocking at my bomb shelter? I'm going to say, "Is that Bill O'Reilly? Can't hear you." Listen, here's the thing. It is not a problem to point out...

O'REILLY: I would rather starve, Beck. Than knock on your bomb shelter door asking you for food.

BECK: Oh, you will.

O'REILLY: I'll go down before I do that.

BECK: Listen, here's the thing. You come near it, you will. Anyway, here's the thing. It's -- I don't bring this up, because I want it. I bring it up to warn people...

Oh, sure, one can assume they were just joshing over whether Beck would feed a post-apocalyptic Bill O'Reilly, but Beck wasn't fully. He's just totally fucking unhinged. Here he is on his own show: "Our rights and liberties come to us from God and we lend them to the government. Washington currently seems to have a different spin on that: government is god. But, if you believe in the founders' ideals, it makes sense that God would give us an early warning system. That's your gut — don't dismiss it."

With a smile on his pudgy, sincere face, Glenn Beck is the Pillsbury Doughboy of Doom. Oh, Poppin' Fresh, if you are the future of your ideology, if you appall Bill O'Reilly, no less a doomsayer in other times, then you and your ilk can disappear into your bunkers while the rest of us try to get shit done.

Why Andy Rooney Should Sodomize Bill O'Reilly With a Microphone (A Variation on the "Sodomize Bill O'Reilly" Series):
Don't fuck with Andy Rooney. Tough old cranky sonuvabitch, that guy. Was in WWII, has fucked up the shit of more presidents than most Americans can name, stayed on through accusations of racism, sexism, whatever. Just like with Helen Thomas, you do not fuck with Andy Rooney 'cause he will fuck you right back. The Rude Pundit has heard tales, of the Japanese scalps Rooney keeps in a lockbox in his office to show underlings whenever someone crosses him. He has heard of the time that Rooney beat the shit out of Chet Huntley in a barroom brawl that spilled onto the streets of Manhattan over whether or not Ike was a pussy as President. Oh, how Huntley learned his lesson: don't mess with the brass balls of Rooney. Goddamn, the history, the history of Andy Rooney's balls. How he roughly fucked Barbara Walters in the backroom of an ABC exec's office while Harry Reasoner, sobbing, masturbated furtively in the corner. How, when Mike Wallace tried to get him booted from 60 Minutes, Rooney took him into the CBS mail room and yanked down his pants and beat Wallace's ass red with a belt in front of all the interns. Wallace has never recovered and still insists on being photoshopped into the yearly 60 Minutes publicity shot.

So, really, and, c'mon, what chance does Bill O'Reilly have?

Last week, on 60 Minutes, Rooney took on Pat Robertson and Mel Gibson for claiming that God has spoken to both of them. To Gibson, Rooney posed this question: "How many million dollars does it look as if you're going to make off the crucifixion of Christ?" (The answer, we now know, is "a fuck of a lot.") Bill O'Reilly, seeing a chance to beat up an old man, offered Rooney to come on his Fox "news" show to defend his position. O'Reilly had conducted a scrotum-licking interview with Gibson, who, O'Reilly acknowledges, has optioned O'Reilly's "novel." Rooney declined; instead, Rooney offered for both of them to go on Larry King Live, which O'Reilly, like a good bully, declined. So O'Reilly is left to denigrate Rooney, in his "Talking Points" from Feb. 27. O'Reilly sees Rooney as part of a liberal media conspiracy to destroy Mel Gibson; he played clips of Rooney on Don Imus's radio show where, to Rooney's credit, he didn't just call O'Reilly "the worst interviewer there is;" Rooney was also self-effacing, saying, "I don't want to go on there and get killed." But O'Reilly is a simpering fuck, smirking and pandering to his "audience," mocking old men and demanding their presence in his court. Christ, on billoreilly.com, O'Reilly's poll is a "Yes" or "No" to whether Andy Rooney should retire. Why? Is Rooney too old? Or too unafraid of one-note propagandists masking as "journalists"?

But O'Reilly better watch his back. Rooney, old though he may be, is not a man to be fucked with. The Rude Pundit hears he's lubing up a particularly large microphone for rough insertion into O'Reilly's rectum. You can bet Rooney won't stop jamming it up there until O'Reilly says, "I'm your bitch, Andy, please keep fucking me with that diaphragm mike." Oh, like so many before him, O'Reilly will learn, he will learn his lessons, he will learn his place, on his knees before Rooney.

Why Ann Coulter and Bill O'Reilly Are Cunts (Racism and Sexism Edition):
In her latest "column" (if by "column," you mean "the skidmarks of the unclean soul"), Ann Coulter defends Bill O'Reilly from Lawrence O'Donnell, which, if you think about it, is a little like Rodan defending Godzilla from a Tokyo tank attack (interesting, "Tokyo tank attack" is one of the Rude Pundit's favorite new sexual positions, involving an asshole, a speculum, two mutually masturbating Japanese men and...well, do the math). See, O'Reilly said, shortly after the verdict acquitting George Zimmerman of murdering Trayvon Martin despite the fact that George Zimmerman murdered Trayvon Marton, that single black mothers are to blame for violent crime by black youths.

Thus spaketh O'Reilly: "White people don't force black people to have babies out of wedlock. That's a personal decision -- a decision that has devastated millions of children and led to disaster both socially and economically. So raised without much structure, young black men often reject education and gravitate towards the street culture, drugs, hustling, gangs. Nobody forces them to do that -- again, it is a personal decision." At this point, to say that Bill O'Reilly says something ignorant and racist is like saying that Bill O'Reilly took a breath. Oh, and O'Reilly also blames the entertainment industry for making thugs look glamorous, which is something they totally never did in the salad days of Jimmy Cagney flicks.

Never one to let a blatantly hateful statement go unsupported, Coulter praises O'Reilly for speaking truth. She gives a bunch of history and statistics about how Lyndon Johnson ruined everything, lines that are just cut and paste jobs from her latest book (no, really, self-plagiarism is how she "writes" "her" "columns" and gets paid for them). She scratches, "Liberals keep using the bad consequences of their policies as an argument for more of the same policies. Government subsidies to unwed mothers increase the illegitimacy rate, which in turn leads to poverty, criminal behavior and more illegitimacy. So Democrats reverse cause and effect to claim it's the poverty that causes illegitimacy and then demand more payments to unwed mothers."

And O'Reilly concludes, "The solution to the epidemic of violent crime in poor black neighborhoods is to actively discourage pregnancies out of marriage, to impose strict discipline in the public schools, including mandatory student uniforms, and to create a zero tolerance policy for gun and drug crimes imposing harsh mandatory prison time on the offenders." Of course, the notion of institutional and societal racism having an effect here is completely lost on these conservative cockbiters.

Now you may be sane and think, "These two stupid fuckers are missing something big. But I can't put my finger on it."

Coulter says, "We know poverty does not cause illegitimacy." That's an argument you can have with Coulter if you enjoy chasing your tail around a tree. But here's the deal: we do know what prevents illegitimacy - sex education, access to birth control, and abortion.

Follow the bouncing ball of blatant obviousness here: If we take Coulter and O'Reilly at their word, then what would make for lower crime rates? Fewer criminals, all those bastards born to those wretched black single moms. And what would ensure that fewer babies are born? Well, shit, start with honest sex education, the kind that O'Reilly and Coulter oppose. Move on to access to birth control - at school or at, you know, Planned Parenthood - which O'Reilly and Coulter oppose. And if all else fails, make sure that women with unwanted children can get safe abortions, which O'Reilly and Coulter oppose, paid for by Medicaid, which would cause O'Reilly and Coulter's heads to explode like so many melons under Gallagher's novelty sledgehammer.

It's a cruel calculus, for sure, but it's only so for playing on the nutzoid right-wingers' field. Shit, Coulter says the solution is to go back to a time when women were required to have husbands in order to qualify for welfare. So who is being crueler? (Answer: Coulter.)

Oh, by the way, you know the other effect that the sex-ed/birth control/abortion axis of access would have? Many, many empowered black women not held back by unwanted children, which probably would cause O'Reilly and Coulter to head to the Fox "news" panic room to wait out the horrors, balling madly and frantically until Coulter, like a female praying mantis, bites O'Reilly's head off.

Why Bill O'Reilly Ought To Be Sodomized With a Microphone (The Bad Touches Edition):
There's few things more deliriously merry than watching the public meltdowns of bullies. When Edward R. Murrow wrecked Joseph McCarthy, the hearts of many lit up and rejoiced, dancing in the streets like crazed Munchkins proclaiming the witch was, indeed, dead. When, in the 1980s, Jimmy Swaggart, Jim Bakker, and other televangelists who had so loudly proclaimed the sins of others were shown on the air weeping, gnashing, thrashing, begging for forgiveness to keep that filthy lucre flowing, the Rude Pundit remembers sitting with friends and toasting the delicious tears of sorrow that flowed from the penitent eyes of those who hoped to live to bully again.

The ratings are plunging for Bill O'Reilly, Fox "news" show host, and a man who would gladly eat the eyeballs of fluffy bunnies if he thought it'd jack him up a share or two. And O'Reilly is begging people he despises to come on The O'Reilly Factor. He devoted an entire segment to asking why Angelina Jolie won't receive the O'Reilly falafel of love, questioning her work for the U.N., as if the only way something is legit is if O'Reilly can give it the imprimatur of his bile-ridden mouth-froth: "I have no idea what this Jolie's doing. I've seen her criticize the United States in her pronouncements overseas. I didn't like that. She won't answer to our questions. She doesn't publicize what she's doing. I have no clue."

O'Reilly allowed guest Jeb Babbin of the National Review (motto: William F. Buckley needs the blood of nubile CPAC members to keep living) to outright bash Jolie while O'Reilly appeared unable to do any actual research and needed Jolie to come on and explain it to him while he, no doubt, wasn't watching her thick lips, heaving breasts, and creamy thighs: "Even if I want to help those people, Jolie isn't telling me how."

But research and, indeed, truth goes out the window when a bully is on the verge of taking the big fall, when the whiffs of the flopsweat and stains of doom are becoming evident in the opening of the meltdown. O'Reilly is now involved in a kerfuffle with the Houston Chronicle. See, the Chronicle published an editorial on May 11 saying that Florida's new law putting satellite tracking devices on convicted sex offenders for life was a fairly useless, showboating act - just because you can tell that a sex offender was near a school doesn't mean you're gonna stop him from molesting and killing a kid. And, as the editorial points out, the vast majority of molestation is committed by relatives and family acquaintances. The Chronicle advocated a couple of no-brainer, practical ideas, like better parole monitoring, community watches, and, horror of liberal horrors, counseling. Part of the new legislation also mandates 25 years to life sentences for convicted child molesters - an aspect that the Chronicle didn't address positively or negatively - the paper didn't address it at all, concentrating on the GPS part.

O'Reilly used the editorial for a batshit insane attack on the newspaper. He claimed the paper said the law was too harsh, he said the paper's "taken a lot of shots at me" so it must be liberal, and then, while "interviewing" Austin criminal defense attorney Courtney Anderson, he took out the bunny and starting gulping down eyeballs like olives: "Counseling, community service projects, all of this touchy feely BS the Houston Chronicle's putting out there, because whoa, far be it from society to have zero tolerance against child molesters. We can't have that. This is the kind of pinhead stuff that's hurt this country." When Anderson dared to imply that what O'Reilly was saying was not, actually, in the article, O'Reilly bit the head off the bunny: "You're misreading this article. This article, number one, criticizes Florida for passing the law, says they don't like the law. The law is too harsh, all right, number one."

O'Reilly said, flatly, regarding the killer of Jessica Lunsford, "The editorial says it doesn't want Couey prosecuted 25 to life." Not only did the editorial never mention the "25 to life" part of the law, its only reference to John Couey was as an example of the need for better-trained probation officers. There's simply, factually, no way to infer what the Houston Chronicle editorial board would like for Couey's punishment. Unless, of course, you are crazy.

The Chronicle struck back at O'Reilly, saying that the editorial page had only ever mentioned O'Reilly once before, and that O'Reilly was lying about the editorial: "O'Reilly told his viewers that the Chronicle editorial said the Florida law was too harsh. He was mistaken. The editorial excerpts that O'Reilly projected on the screen said nothing about the harshness of the punishment. The editorial, citing extensive research on this subject, said hooking GPS monitors to sexual predators released from prison might prove less effective than closer supervision by parole officers and other low-tech strategies. The Chronicle did not call for lighter punishment; it called for the adoption of the most effective measures to protect our children."

O'Reilly said this to Anderson: "Let me just read you what they say, because you are misleading the audience, counselor. This is a quote from the editorial in The Houston Chronicle: 'Ultimately, the Jessica Lunsford Act makes a good headline and addresses fears of stranger danger, but essentially makes people feel like they can abdicate their responsibility to protect their children.' No, it doesn't. All right, it doesn't. It holds child molesters accountable." The problem here, as the Chronicle points out, is that O'Reilly's quote appears absolutely nowhere in the editorial. It is a completely fabricated quote.

But O'Reilly is not a man to back down from a good falsehood. Last night, O'Reilly stuck to his guns, only saying that he had "misquoted the editorial" on one occasion without really specifying what the misquote was. And demanding that the editorial board of the Chronicle address the 25 years to life portion of the law, which, again, they never mentioned: "Does the Houston Chronicle object to the 25-to-years-to-life punishment in Florida? Yes or no? If no, will the paper campaign for Jessica's law in Texas? Yes or no?" O'Reilly bloviated about how ludicrious "rehabilitation" is, he knowing more than every fucking study ever done about rehabilitating criminals. Then, asserting his flagging importance, O'Reilly declared, "The Chronicle is playing games because so many of its readers are angry over its editorial position. We know the paper's under tremendous pressure."

O'Reilly wants you to look at the two editorials on his website, iwantmypitainyourfalafel.org , and then you can vote on whether Bill is right or wrong. 'Course, the website doesn't have the transcript of O'Reilly's interview, nor does the Fox "News" website. For that, you need good ol' Nexis.

Goddamn, it's a great feeling to watch O'Reilly implode. He desperately needs his name in the news or it's back to "Levittown" with him, where he can seethe and spit at the "liberal" media with his trophy wife, screaming at the darkness and the void, his voice merely a tiny mouse screech in an uncaring universe.

Weekly Reason Why Bill O'Reilly Should Be Sodomized With a Pine Cone:
Bill O'Reilly, TV ranter, radio ranter, print ranter, and Al Franken's bitch, went all Captain Queeg on the NPR chat show, Fresh Air. He was rattling his ball bearings and spewing about the strawberries when host Terry Gross questioned the notoriously thin-skinned former "journalist" about his attack dog tactics on reviewers who dislike his show. Until that point, the thirty-five or so minute interview (which O'Reilly said was fifty minutes long) had opened with a section about O'Reilly's slap fight with Al Franken (which O'Reilly spun like a desperate husband caught with three fingers in the cooz of a hooker - "Um, I lost my keys?"), then discussed his book, the new one with the stalker-like title of Who's Looking Out For You?- a book O'Reilly claims is out there "to help people", and then about O'Reilly's childhood. When Gross turned back to O'Reilly's name-calling and cockiness, O'Reilly freaked, lumping NPR, the New York Times, Al Franken, and Harper's Magazine into one big liberal buggaboo out to get O'Reilly because, you know, Christ, they just can't stand him. And then, after getting Gross to admit that she did not grill comedian Franken as closely, he stalked away from the interview, saying, "This is basically an unfair interview trying to trap me into saying something that Harper's can use," leaving Gross to say, "That's it. You get the final word and I can't respond," which, as anyone who watches or hears that weasel-fucker O'Reilly knows it's his modus operandi.

Look, O'Reilly has one subject: himself. His show is about how he's right. Any appearance he makes elsewhere is to demonstrate his further rightness. If he was photographed beating a hobo to death with a black infant as a club, he would say that the hobo and the infant were conspiring against him. And the slobbering, drooling assholes who watch him, who think he's oh-so-open-minded because, well, shit, he supports decriminalizing pot, would just go right along with him, because he's Bill O'Fuck My Dear Sainted Mother Reilly, and how could he possibly be a dried up old windbag whose scrotum spews dusty sperm and whose hate knows no bounds. No, he couldn't possibly be that. The rest of us are just out to get him.

If you wanna hear the whole interview (which O'Reilly does link to on his site), go here. However, since O'Reilly counts on his fans having the attention span of a spastic child fresh out of ritalin, at his site he offers the last six minutes of the interview, which is mostly Gross trying to read a review from People magazine and O'Reilly freaking out and screeching insanely, but I guess that's what passes for a proper rhetorical battle these days in the "fair and balanced" world.

Reference guide: Captain Queeg is the character played by Humphrey Bogart in The Caine Mutiny, whose crew turns on him when his vicious paranoia over things like strawberries eaten without permission gets out of control. And he fondles ball bearings whenever he gets particularly nuts.

Why Bill O'Reilly Ought To Be Sodomized With a Microphone (Vermont Boycott Edition):
From Bill O'Reilly's Fox "news" program last night, in his "Talking Points" segment (aka "Watch, fuckers, as I lick my own taint"):

"One of the big problems in Vermont is that the media is dishonest. Newspapers in Brattleboro, Bennington, Rutland all said I called for a boycott of Vermont. Those papers know that's not true because I've stated again and again I'm not in favor of a boycott. But they print the lie anyway."

From the January 16, 2006 edition of the same program, when O'Reilly was in full froth over the Vermont judge who didn't give a vicious enough sentence to a child molester for O'Reilly's liking:

"Our billoreilly.com poll question asks if Judge Cashman is not removed from criminal cases, will you boycott Vermont? If Judge Cashman is not removed from criminal cases, will you boycott Vermont? Unfortunately, that's what it might take -- action by the rest of the country to wake the state up."

From later that same night, whilst intoning letters from viewers regarding said Vermont controversy:

"Ellen Murphy, New Fairfield, Connecticut: 'Cashman's ruling was not the fault of the folks in Vermont. The boycott you call for, O'Reilly, would hurt them.'"

O'Reilly responded, "I did not call for a boycott, madam. I put the poll question on a web site so people can decide for themselves."

From the January 23, 2006 of the ongoing saga:

"In Vermont itself, the liberal media has rallied to the defense of the judge. Yesterday the Montpelier newspaper lied outright to its readers, saying I'm leading a boycott of Vermont. That, of course, is false. We have a boycott question on billoreilly.com. That's it."

One year later, well, just a couple of weeks ago, on January 15, 2007, here's what O'Reilly told his audience: "'Talking Points' is considering boycotting Vermont. But if that happens, thousands of good people will get hurt because the state depends on tourism."

He followed this up by questioning a former state senator in this way: "Ms. Wilton, I am considering asking people to boycott the state of Vermont. Not go there, not buy their products. I don't want to do it. You just heard those - you know, every - well not everybody, but people that we spoke to in Vermont -- in southern Vermont, they all knew about this case. They all were horrified. But the fact remains the legislature voted down Jessica's Law. The media continues to cover up for this stuff in Vermont. And the situation is out of control. So boycott or no?"

And then there's this from January 17, 2007: "Well, today, the corrupt Vermont media sprung into action. Again, The Times Argus newspaper said, 'Another year, another national condemnation of Vermont by right-wing cable talk show host Bill O'Reilly...O'Reilly...called for a national boycott of Vermont.' Well, that's a lie. I have not called for a boycott of Vermont, but I am calling for a boycott of The Times Argus, a dishonest enterprise."

Man, Bill O'Reilly would have been awesome as the instigator of a lynch mob back in the day in the South. Standing in a bar, with all the drunk rednecks around him, talking about that black guy who was arrested for whistling at a white woman, you could just see O'Reilly, fingers on his suspenders like he's Stephen Fuckin' Douglas, declaiming, "How many of you boys think we oughta just bust down the door of that jail and drag that nigger out and hang 'im from the big ol' elm tree in the town square? Do you think that'd be a lesson to all the other niggers? Now, now, Jesse, Clyde, calm down, I'm just sayin' that it's somethin' we might wanna consider. What do you men think about lynchin' that nigger who insulted the womanhood of one of our town darlings?" And then, once that mob went charging out of the bar, half of them getting the tar and rope ready, half of them heading down to the county lock-up, O'Reilly could just watch from the window, knowing that he never really said that the man should be lynched. But he'll definitely sit back and enjoy the smell of burnt flesh.

Bill O'Reilly Fights the War on Christmas Titties:
Now, by Fox "News" host and self-described "big boob" lover (which means he must adore Sean Hannity) Bill O'Reilly's calculation, the Rude Pundit is just a dirty fuckin' SP (no, not "Sucker of Penises," but "Secular Progressive"). But if, say, the Rude Pundit had an hour every weeknight in which to offer commentary and do interviews on the news of the day, he doesn't think that he'd pay quite as much on-air attention to the travails of your everyday stripper. Not out of any dislike of strippers. It's a question of proportion, you know. Not Bill O'Reilly, though. If someone done a g-string wearing lap dancer wrong, O'Reilly's there to defend her dignity in the face of a world that just doesn't get it.

So last night, on his Fox "News" show (if by "show," you mean, "48 minutes of nut-grabbing, baby-eating, and spooge target practice"), after implying that Vermont and Boulder, Colorado don't give a shit about murdered children because they "are run by far-left secular progressives," O'Reilly hosted a discussion with two strippers from Scores in New York City (which Scores he did not say, for there is more than one, dear readers). In case you didn't know what he was talking about, O'Reilly laid it out for you: "[T]hey call them gentlemen's clubs. They're all over the country. Basically places where guys watch women undress on stage." There's about thirty jokes to make about that line, but why bother, huh?

Kelly Branton, in a cleavage-revealing ensemble, perhaps the better to breastfeed the baby Jesus, and the single-named Morgan, dressed more demurely, complained to O'Reilly that no charities are taking the money and gifts that the strippers have raised for Christmas. Except for the Marines Toys for Tots. Probed O'Reilly of Morgan, "Were you -- were your feelings hurt when they turned the money down? Were your feelings hurt?" And, in fact, Morgan's feelings were hurt.

As were Kelly Branton's. She explained, "[S]pecifically because the charities that were supposedly affiliated with the empowerment of women, and I feel that we as women doing what we do, a lot of us have children and a lot of us are single parents...And when we want to give back to the community, for a charity to say, 'We're not going to accept your donations because we think that it's degrading to women,' offends me because of the fact that I do this empowers me as a woman." In the video of this moment, about two minutes in, you can see O'Reilly trying very hard not to look at Branton's self-empowered tits. His eyes shift up and down faster than a rent boy's head in the alley behind the Manhole. But O'Reilly felt up Branton's pain: "I can tell you, just talking to you, you get a little emotional about this."

O'Reilly moved on to his "Most Ridiculous" item of the day before heading back to his office to break out the Jergen's to jack off thinking about getting a faceful of the young thonged ass of Mary, the mother of Jesus. Morgan and Branton presumably headed back to Scores to make men ejaculate in their pants. And thus Christmas was one step closer to being saved by the good works of Bill O'Reilly.

Mainstreaming Torture, Part 1-- Why Bill O'Reilly Ought To Be Sodomized With a Broken Light Bulb:
There is a bizarre sexual fetish that has its own storytelling adherents on the Internet and in print. These people get off on the idea of people swallowing other people. No, no, not Dahmer-esque cannibalism, eating away bit by bit from the body in the fridge. Here, a man, say a patient at a dentist's office, is able to unhinge his jaws, snake-style, to engorge whole the poor female dental assistant whose only crime was to care about tooth decay. Goddamn, how these people spank it or rub it to the tales of people-swallowing. Whenever the Rude Pundit watches Fox "News," he thinks that Rupert Murdoch must have the entire on-air staff masturbate to this kind of porn.

Last night, on his Fox "News" show (if by "show," you mean, "a horrid hour of hell-like suffering at the hands of an attention whore whose ego would make him suck out the eyes of old lady Alzheimer's patients if he thought it would get him another ratings point"), Bill O'Reilly devoted the first segment to criticizing those who write and talk about the allegations and confirmed reports of torture at the hands or desires of the United States. Apparently, see, the media must be liberal if it dares to say that torture is bad because, you know, reporting on torture hurts our soldiers and helps the enemy (most of whom would be, well, Iraqi citizens). No, no, if you think that the real problem is the act of torture, you'd be a "pinhead" in O'Reilly's world.

Spat O'Reilly, "Just the allegations alone hurt this country and shift emphasis from the real villains, terrorists, who routinely murder civilians. Day after day, the left-wing media pound stories about America's mistreating prisoners in Guantanamo, in Iraq, in Afghanistan. Those reports are picked up worldwide and are used to incite anti-American feeling and even to recruit more terrorists." Oh, yeah, O'Reilly offers the caveat that prisoners have been tortured and people have been prosecuted, but, "Any reasonable person knows that, in a vicious struggle, some rules will be broken." O'Reilly continues, "The trouble is the continuing reportage of the torture allegations is putting lives in danger. Hyping the situation to undermine the Bush administration is disgraceful and should be condemned." Then O'Reilly used the opportunity to slam Ted Kennedy before squinting his eyes as if he had just tasted bile.

Then O'Reilly had on two military guys to agree with him. For instance, Col. David Hunt said, "Torture is one tool" in interrogation. Later, he opined, "This is about political will. The fighting - - the war on terror is about political will and commitment, and torture is one small part of how this has to be approached. You can't hide about it." O'Reilly was almost giddy, like a Bangkok pimp at some village girl's school. He derided Kennedy and that undefinable "left wing media" throughout as his guests propped up his big damn head like the house slaves at the plantation home of a drunk master.

Oh, how O'Reilly, who danced, danced, danced with glee as he fed on the corpse of Eason Jordan, the CNN exec who said that U.S. troops kill journalists, did a little boogie after the interview. So happy he was, deploring the effort to find out how much and how regularly America tortures people, and O'Reilly (and millions of his viewers) brings it down to this: we need to define more clearly the rules of torture because, you know, we're gonna capture people and detain them until we've used them up and said fuck due process and during all those months and years we are gonna sexually humiliate them and beat them, so, hey, let's make the rules clear so everyone knows what they can and cannot do. O'Reilly then took a huge shit on his desk and wiped his ass with the Geneva Conventions, screaming, "Fuck your 'international rules.' Your treaties aren't even good toilet paper." And across the nation, O'Reilly's fans cheered at seeing O'Reilly degrade ideas and documents that they do not even want to understand beyond what is filtered through the seething, grunting, spittle-spewing mouth of O'Reilly.

O'Reilly and the right are part of the effort to mainstream torture, to make it seem rational and right to bloodthirsty America, the America that believes that if the "terrorists" are going to behead innocent people, then America has the perfect right to torture and "detain" anyone it sees fit, even if a "few innocent people" get caught in the fishing net (and isn't "detain" just the most polite fucking word? It's like you've been asked to stay a little longer at the cotillion in order to ensure the debutantes are escorted out properly, so you tell your party, "Sorry, I've been detained." Yeah, it's like that, but with more nuts-in-vises and fake menstrual blood smeared on your face- well, except for that one cotillion in Georgia, but that's another story).

If torture becomes just another "tool" in the interrogation box, a regular, regulated thing rather than an horrific abomination, then maybe the Christian right is correct: why bother believing that evolution exists?

Why Bill O'Reilly Ought To Be Sodomized With a Microphone (Part 929):
Here's O'Reilly, Fox "News" radio and television host and a man who likes the gentle massage of a vibrator on his prostate until it brings him to ululations of glee, on his Radio Factor on November 17, talking about the organization Human Rights Watch: "They're very shadowy -- they don't tell you where their money comes from. But we have investigated," and then proceeded to smear HRW with an "investigation" seemingly into the organization's website, which freely thanks its large donors, like the Soros Foundation and the Carnegie Endowment. That's all well and good for the afternoon for O'Reilly - Human Rights Watch, busily calling attention to the depravities around the world, especially the Sudan, is "shadowy," like the KGB. But that evening, on The O'Reilly Factor on TV, who does O'Reilly have on to talk about the video of the Marine shooting a wounded Iraqi prisoner? Why, look, it's Kenneth Roth, executive director of Human Rights Watch, who O'Reilly calls "a stand-up guy." Hmm, you might ponder, can a "shadowy" group be led by a "stand-up guy"? Contradiction, you might think. Hypocrisy, you might suspect. But then you wouldn't be Bill O'Reilly, a man who never let little things like evidence, facts, and his own words get in the way of his desire to act like a beaver on meth, crazily gnawing everything in his path to create a dam for his river of bullshit.

As Roth, who's been working on human rights issues for over two decades, attempted to describe how the Marine's execution of the prisoner was a war crime, O'Reilly kept interrupting with "You would injure this young Marine?" or "You think the Marine made it up?" O'Reilly then pulled out the bully card to this upstart, this humanistic Hebe, who deigned to try to tell O'Reilly about the rule of "law" and the vicissitudes of "combat," when O'Reilly spouted, "We have millions of people watching right now . . . Millions of people. And I will submit to you that 90 percent of the millions of people all over the world agree with me and not you . . . So who is being unreasonable here?" And with that, any illusion of "dialogue" was effectively ended. The majority likes its war bloody and vindictvie, goddamnit. Even as Roth attempted to explain that we follow things like the Geneva Conventions because we don't want the same shit to happen to our soldiers, O'Reilly dismissed the "stand-up guy," who really just was O'Reilly's fuck puppet for the evening, a chance for O'Reilly to scratch and scream and pretend to "knowledge" and "morality," and, really, and c'mon, all we can think when we see O'Reilly now is his saggy man boobs and dropped scrotum masking his tiny cock as he steps into a shower, loofah in his hand, rubbing the tits and pussy of a female employee, intoning, "90 percent of the folks trust me, 90 percent of the folks trust me, so should you, so should you."

Why Bill O'Reilly Ought To Be Sodomized With a Microphone, Part 7 of an Unending Series:
We all know that O'Reilly is a shrill shill for the right; we all know that every night he lifts his sperm-smeared face out of Rupert Murdoch's lap to that the Aussie fascist can give him marching orders for the next day. But over the last week, O'Reilly has taken it upon himself to crusade against Richard Clarke with a viciousness that is not unakin to a leopard downing a gazelle and parading around with the gazelle's intestines for all the other leopards to see. His first "Talking Points Memo," right after Clarke testified, spun enough doubt into O'Reilly's attitude toward Clarke that it put a lie to O'Reilly's conclusion, "We will try to feed you simple information so you can decide as always."

It's an interesting sentence in so many pathetic ways that it's hard to know where to begin. To "feed" people information means that you are taking an active role in giving them what you suppose they need to know. "Simple information" seems to denote that complexities, like Clarke could be angry and be correct, are antithetical to the simplicity of the simpletons who watch your simple pronouncements. In other words, O'Reilly may as well have concluded his Mar. 23 monologue with, "Richard Clarke: eeevil," leaning into the camera, making mesmer eyes.

But O'Reilly was just getting warmed up. On Mar. 24, O'Reilly opened with a declaration that the "truth is very simple" and labelled everything that might be a nuance "political and boring." (O'Reilly's simple truth was that Clinton and Bush didn't do enough to stop 9/11. Sometimes watching O'Reilly can be like spending time in a class of third graders.) Mar. 25 was when the hounds were unleashed by Fox, when Fox got the okay from the White House to reveal Clarke as the anonymous source of a background briefing in order to attempt to "discredit" him. O'Reilly was drooling blood as he pronounced, "The other thing that makes us suspicious about Clarke is that his publisher has not booked him on 'The Factor.' " Again: third graders. Dickie won't come to my house and play, so Dickie must be a mean boy.

This week, after dissing Bob Kerrey for dissing Fox for dissing Clarke, after skewing poll numbers that said 2/3 of the public had not changed its opinion of Bush (which means, for all intents and purposes, if you thought Bush was a son of a bitch, both literally and figuratively, before Clarke's revelations, you really weren't going to switch sides), O'Reilly may as well have stood on top of his desk and dropped his pants, taking a huge dump on Clarke's book as he swept Clarke away from our memories by declaring him a "footnote" to O'Reilly and now "put to bed this evening."

Do you ever think Bill O'Reilly looks in the mirror at his splotchy face, lined with hatred and evil (and not a little racism), perhaps a bit sad at his ennobling of those who degrade the rest of us, and wonders if hell is real? And do you think he wonders if every day on the air, on tv, radio, in print, he turns his personal flame up just a tick higher? Nah.

Quick additional note:
Apparently Janeane Garofalo's Majority Report radio show on Air America, which O'Reilly dismissed this week as a fraud, will regularly feature political bloggers. Contact the producers and tell 'em you'd like 'em to interview the Rude Pundit. Try "my2cents@airamericaradio.com".

Back Monday.

Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck Talk About...Nothing:
It's always awkward when you're in a room with some people, and one man starts to jack off another man, especially if you're not invited to join in. You could get up and leave when one dude unzips the other dude's pants and, with no effort to hide anything, grabs his cock and starts yanking away like a frantic dairy farmer whose milking machines just broke down. It'd be the rational thing to do. But sometimes, you just stare, like you're at the movies, even though you know the plot and that it's got a happy ending. There's something mesmerizing, after all, about such unabashed pleasuring.

So it was that, on his Fox "news" show last night, Bill O'Reilly featured an "interview" with fellow Fox-er Glenn Beck (if by "interview," you mean...well, see above). O'Reilly billed it as "Glenn Beck answers his critics." Oh, goody, one might think, can't wait to see the mutual crazy society at play. Yet what followed was the equivalent of a female baboon raising its hot haunches so it could be fucked by Rupert Murdoch. And it was every bit as informative as watching an aged Australian fuck a monkey. You come away from that experience thinking, "Huh. So that's how you fuck a monkey. Or maybe that's just how they do it Down Under."

Here's a sample where O'Reilly asks Beck about his time working at CNN Headline News. Get a friend and read it like a play:
O'REILLY: So you'd walk in the newsroom, people would hate you?

BECK: Yes, I was walking in the newsroom one time, and a lady said to me, one of the journalists there, she looked up and she went, "Ugh." And I...

O'REILLY: But they do that here.

BECK: Not to me. It's just you. But they -- I said, "That's not necessary." And she said, "Oh, you expect it." And I said, "I do, and isn't that sad?"

O'REILLY: So did that inhibit you, and you weren't as flamboyant over there because of these pinheads mocking you?

BECK: No, I think the reason why I wasn't as flamboyant -- I mean, I think I'm the same person.

O'REILLY: Not on the air, though.

BECK: You don't think so?

O'REILLY: No. You were much more low key over there. It's like the full moon came out when you got to Fox.

So Fox made Beck amp up the nutsy. Later, O'Reilly offered this nugget: "[W]hen you go on and you do your thing, there is an equal part serious and there's an equal part theater. Some people use that against you." Beck, to his credit, did not argue the point, although he did say later, " I think people think that I'm just -- oh, well, he's just a silly clown or whatever...I'm not. I'm a genuinely thoughtful person. I just know how to package things in an entertaining way."

The most compelling aspect of the whole affair was the delicious All About Eve tension of seeing O'Reilly's Bette Davis trying to put the ratings usurping Beck/Anne Baxter in his place while acting all chummy:
O'REILLY: On the air a very good personality. Off the air you're a little boring. But on the air very good personality.

BECK: I think this is hostile atmosphere here.

O'REILLY: All right. No, it's not. Come on. We're your friends here.

BECK: This is my friend.

Beck, a man who routinely "entertains" his audience with images of killing liberals, talked about his fears for his own security. So the whole affair was something less than "answering his critics" and more of a "whine-fest for a pair of demonic ratings whores who will one day be forced into an eternal razor-wire cage match in Hell."

The most depressing part of the segment was that O'Reilly wouldn't let the younger host come. He'd pump that Beck-meat until it was about to explode and then stop just short, only to start pumping again. You could see how badly Beck just wanted to blow his load, but O'Reilly's yanked a few dicks in his day. He wouldn't let this pissant upstart spray Mormon spunk all over his primetime show.

Weekly Reason Bill O'Reilly Should Be Sodomized With a Microphone:
Bill O'Reilly, "author," "TV personality," and all around tiny dick, continues his ranting against NPR. O'Reilly, promoting his latest "book," went on NPR's Fresh Air to shill for sales. He ended up going nutzoid over the questions, which he deemed as tough, and ranted about a seeming collusion between Al Franken, host Terry Gross, Harper's magazine, and the New York Times. All in all, it was one of those fucking funny moments in broadcasting that make you cringe, like watching the President at a press conference, all deer in the headlights and shit. He ended up stalking off in the middle of the interview after screaming like a female ape getting gang-fucked in the jungle by a bunch of male apes.

One point oughta be made here: sure, Harper's printed the partial transcript of the time on his "show" on the FOX "news" channel that O'Reilly went all batshit on Jeremy Glick, the surviving son of a man killed in the World Trade Center collapse, screaming at him to "Shut up!" because Glick dared to claim that everything wasn't as cut and dried about 9/11 as O'Reilly wants his viewers to think. But Harper's, lefty though it mostly is, also published this article, "The Middle Mind" by Curtis White in 2002, where, among other things, White calls the show a "pornographic farce." The Rude Pundit thinks this might indicate a less than friendly relationship between the magazine and Gross. But that's a subtlety, and, well, shit, O'Reilly's about as subtle as a two-foot long black hard plastic strap-on dildo shoved up your ass.

But last night on his FOX "news" show, O'Reilly went after NPR and Fresh Air again, for the third time, this night playing the end of the interview where he yells at Gross. Then O'Reilly interviewed a Republican Congressman from Florida (always a trustworthy source), Cliff Stearns, and together the two of them circle jerked each other for a couple of minutes about how Americans pay for the liberal bashing of O'Reilly on NPR, with O'Reilly labelling the moderate National Public Radio "far left." And he baited NPR producers for not coming on his show to be belittled, mocked, and cut off. Then O'Reilly and his boy-bitch for the evening agreeing that NPR should be disciplined for daring to question O'Reilly.

O'Reilly's a pussy, a wimpy little shithead who's a bully on his own turf. Look at his two surfacings beyond his own shows: screaming "Shut up" at Al Franken in May when Franken revealed O'Reilly's lies before an audience of booksellers and now the interview with Gross. Both times he squirmed and screamed and got defensive like a ten year-old caught with porno magazines. Now, here he is, strong arming public opinion because NPR got all up in his face.

Main Course: Why Bill O'Reilly Ought To Be Sodomized With a Falafel:
Awww, sweet motherfuck, let it be true. Let it be true that O'Reilly told producer Andrea Mackris, after she broke up with her boyfriend, to "use your vibrator to blow off steam" and bragged about teaching another woman how to use a vibrator while having phone sex with her. Please, please, oh, God, Jesus, let it be true that he said the "little short brown woman" in a cabana in Bali asked to see O'Reilly's penis. Oh, ah, ohhhh, let it be true that O'Reilly told Mackris and her friend that he would "train" them in order for them to be good little fuck bunnies and then told them stories about fucking Thai hookers and Scandinavian stewardesses. Oh, yeah, smack it, smack it, smack it, let it be true that he threatened Al Franken with revenge through Roger Ailes. Yeah, yeah, that's right, you like that, don't you, don't you, let it be true that he owns a vibrator "shaped like a cock" and that he jacked off while on the phone with Mackris. No, no, not yet, not yet, slow down, shit. Damn. The Rude Pundit knew he'd climax early reading all of O'Reilly's alleged adventures in torturing employees. Anyways . . .

Let it be true that O'Reilly repeatedly reminded Mackris that she owed him a dinner out. Let it be true that he phoned her excitedly after interviewing a pair of porn stars. Let it be true that he offered to go with her to buy a vibrator. Let it be true that O'Reilly told Mackris he wanted to get her down to the Caribbean so he could get her drunk ("intravenously," if necessary) and then he'd get in a shower with her and rub her "big boobs" with a loofah and, as O'Reilly supposedly said, "then I would take the other hand with the falafel thing and I'd put it on your pussy but you'd have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business." Let it be true that O'Reilly said how he'd eat out Mackris and then she'd perform a teasing blow job on him. Let it be true that O'Reilly was fucking himself with a vibrator during this phone call. Let it be true that he told Mackris that she'd have to "suspend" thoughts about O'Reilly being her boss in order for him to fuck her. Let it be true that he told Mackris that she needed to have a sexual fantasy outlet, that it'd be "good for your mental health" before suggesting that "next time" she would come up to his hotel room and "make this happen."

Yeah, yeah, it'd be horrible for Mackris if it's true, but sometimes someone's gotta take one for the team. And you can be a pussy and talk about how horrible it'd be for O'Reilly if it's not true, but, you know, and, really, O'Reilly has helped destroy so many people through his lies, that it couldn't happen to a nicer guy. O'Reilly couldn't get enough of Monica Lewinsky or Chandra Levy, using consensual sexual activity as a means to destroy Democrats. And the asshole is just like Bush - always blaming his problems on someone else. Here's O'Reilly on his radio show about the lawsuit: "We believe that the people behind this lawsuit are on the left. But on the right, too, I mean, I get a lot of lunatic-fringe right people screaming and yelling. And they want to do anything they can to destroy the voice. They want us off the air. They want FOX off the air; they want O'Reilly off the air; and the other commentators they don't like . . . And you can see this in a pattern of behavior where a Hollywood-funded documentaries [sic]; smear books from major publishing houses; elite media picking up this stuff and then running with it in a favorable way. I mean, there's a smear documentary out on FOX . . . there's big money behind this. Big, big money. And it's not an accident that this extortion attempt came three weeks before the election -- four weeks before the election. It's no accident -- this is not a coincidence."

And that's why that smug motherfucker deserves this and why we all get to bask in schadenfreude. Because for O'Reilly it's just a big fuckin' conspiracy against him. So, please, please, God, Allah, Buddha, who the fuckever or no one, let it be true. 'Cause if it's true, then the right will have O'Reilly, vibrator-using falafel fucker, and Rush Limbaugh, batshit insane hillbilly heroin addict.

All we need then is to find the bodies of molested children buried in Sean Hannity's backyard, and we'll have hit the trifecta.

Why Bill O'Reilly Ought To Be Sodomized With a Stripper Pole, Part 2:
Surely, yes, there are weightier matters in this world than just about anything Bill O'Reilly expels from his body. There's the bizarro statement of the President that we're not at war with Russia (which, hopefully, is not news to anyone, although it could have been worse - Bush could then just listed all the countries we're not at war with); there's the sentencing of Scooter Libby, all ready for his new nickname: Scrotum Licky; there's Lindsay Graham's bitchy little hissy fit on the floor of the Senate because Barack Obama dared to offer an amendment to the increasingly subhuman and more or less dead immigration bill; and, of course, of course, there's the G8 Summit and, you know, the war. But let us pause in the muck and mire for a moment, for a palate cleanser, if you will.

For, indeed, if there's one thing Fox "news" host and a man who once mistook a guy in Spongebob suit for a loofah, Bill O'Reilly, loves more than the pungent odor of his own armpits moist with outrage and bluster, it's strippers. One can be sure that, every few months, strippers will somehow make it onto his show. Sure, sure, sometimes it's in a "newsworthy" story like the Duke lacrosse team not raping a stripper, but often it's just an out-of-nowhere interview that makes one pause to ask, "What the fuck does this have to do with, well, fuck, anything?"

Such a moment occurred on last night's episode of the ongoing soap opera The O'Reilly Factor. There was no apparent reason that O'Reilly should interview just graduated University of Nebraska student Jenny Heineman about her senior thesis other than the fact that Heineman wrote about strippers. And she's a stripper. In Omaha. Which sounds sad, except when you realize that she could be a stripper across the river in Council Bluffs, Iowa.

So O'Reilly had Heineman on his show to ask her such scintillating questions as, "What is it that makes it fun for you?" and saying things like, "Come on. Be honest. You like it," which is roughly the same conversation that O'Reilly had with a Des Moines hooker while she was blowing him behind the Cow's Patty bar, with the hooker not able to answer because she was concentrating on putting O'Reilly's tiny, demi-hard wiggle worm in her mouth.

And the whole "interview" was an opportunity for O'Reilly's producers to show, repeatedly, file footage of half-dressed dancing women pouting in a mirror and parading on stage. Yet O'Reilly still found it in him to lecture Heineman: "You're getting naked in front of guys. That's not what most job descriptions are. But anyway, congratulations on graduating," followed by "And we appreciate you coming on," which is exactly what O'Reilly told that Des Moines prostitute when he finally dribbled a bit of seed in her hair.

Heineman got a B for her thesis. And a helluva lot of publicity from news producers looking for something to allow them to avoid talking about the real, depressing shit. Just like, well, you know, certain bloggers in need of a brain washing.

Why Bill O'Reilly Ought To Be Sodomized With a Stripper Pole:
About once a month or so, Bill O'Reilly's gotta get show some cock and/or poontang on his Fox "News" show, and he'll come up with any excuse to weave in some gently edited video of hotties while he conducts an interview on some subject related to the booty shaking. They are always in his pro-anal-sex titled "Back of the Book" segment.

Like last month, O'Reilly interviewed the frighteningly botoxed advice writer April Masini to discuss the pressing issue of whether or not certain girls have, in fact, gone too wild. Those girls would be brides-to-be, and the segment was "Are Bachelorette Parties Wilder Than Ever?" The whole thing was bizarre, as O'Reilly blithered and dithered, showing clips of women enjoying the pleasure of male strippers, as well as the always incredibly homoerotic image of Chippendale's dancers, saying he didn't really understand the topic as Masini chided women for being promiscuous. Said O'Reilly, "I am out of it. I mean, I don't know anything about this at all," which, of course, leads one to ask, "Why the fuck did you do a segment on it on your show?" Or perhaps it's just deep, deep denial that he wants to rub some falafel on a Chippendale dude's big pita.

But O'Reilly sure as shit knew about what was what in his segment last night titled "Is a Crime Wave Dancing Through Strip Clubs?" Talking with former strip club bouncer and author Brent Jordan, who looks amazingly like Bruce Willis in Pulp Fiction, O'Reilly demonstrated all kinds of first-hand "understanding" about the ins and outs of stripper life. Unprompted, seemingly remembering a time when he was in the private room of a crappy titty bar in Duluth and, after dropping a hundy on the expensive champagne there, Mandy, the big-boobed Swedish girl who bobbed her thonged ass on his crank, stopped just short of his blowing a load through his jeans, so he went nuts and started slapping her unconscious before fucking her prone, slack body, tossing another hundy on her, and walking out into the icy Minnesota night, leaving his assistant to promise Mandy that her kid would have a college fund, one of dozens of kids O'Reilly is now putting through school, O'Reilly said, "So assaults against — people come into the club, and then they rough up the girls? They get drunk and they rough them up?"

Despite trying to insist that a stripper's life is sleazy and the club patrons are bad, the interview was interwoven with clips of really hot strippers in pretty clean lookin' places. And you know O'Reilly got wood so fast his crew rolled their eyes at having to edit out the thumping sounds under the desk when Jordan told O'Reilly, "[E]very stripper wants to shake your hand and give you a hug, you personally, because of the work you've done with Jessica's Law. OK, every single one of them," in reference to O'Reilly's bullying and degradation in support of passing a law in every state for harsher penalties for sex crimes against children.

Back in his office, the Factor taping done for the day, O'Reilly took out the loofa glove and coconut oil and faced his large, framed photo of Jessica Lunsford and thanked her before unzipping his pants, putting on the glove and inhaling deeply the tropical scent of the oil. He'll have to get his assistant to make a bunch of wallet-sized pics of him next to the photo, he thought as he took out his chafed member, closing his eyes and leaning back, beginning to stroke himself once again, so he can sign the pics to put in the thongs of the strippers instead of dollar bills.

Why Bill O'Reilly Ought To Be Sodomized With a Microphone, Part 1487:
Fuck the Christmas bullshit. No one really gives a happy monkey fuck about the whole "controversy" over the de-Christmas-ing of Christmas except crazed shut-ins who actually contribute money to keep James Dobson's combover sticky. Or Dobson himself, as well as the myriad Christian scam organizations who need to come up with new ways to sucker idiots into givin' up the bonus check so Donald Wildmon can do the work of the lord of rhetoric. Or Bill O'Reilly, who's ridin' this wave of hot air like a Joe McCarthy balloon to higher ratings and more sales of his "books." And it's forced O'Reilly to pen utter pig crap like his "'Twas the Night Before Solstice," which you should read if only to see what passes for satire on the knuckleheaded right.

No, see, O'Reilly needs the sweet sphincter probing because, on his Fox "News" program, O'Reilly viciously attacked the American Civil Liberties Union last night, saying, "[T]he ACLU leadership are traitors." O'Reilly went after the ACLU for its opposition to the Patriot Act, its taking on of NAMBLA as a client, and, well, hell, its opposition to Christmas displays, 'cause we can never escape the savage grin of the jolly fat man (Santa, not McCarthy, although, shit, that works, too). Yeah, those civil libertarians are evil fuckers, you know. But, says O'Reilly, who is never short of vain attempts to seem balanced, "[T]hat's solely my opinion. Legally, the ACLU has a right to exist, but you have a right to object to it." And, should the day ever come, guess who would be there defending your right to object to the ACLU because it believes in principles and not people? Oh, fuck, irony hurts our brains.

By the way, you can still get from the O'Reilly Christmas Store (motto: "We Will Fuck You in Your Kwanzaa Basket With a Menorah") a tin with soft mint puffs, a great idea for everyone, the site says, "on your holiday gift list." It's the only specifically holiday-connected gift in the entire "store." Perhaps if O'Reilly only sold it for Christmas, that'd just be way too limiting.

By the way, in time for this festive Chanukah season, which O'Reilly refuses to agitate for, the only broken link on his charities page is for the Candles Museum, dedicated to children of the Holocaust. It was gutted by a fire in 2003, an unsolved hate crime no doubt committed by someone for whom "ACLU" and "anti-Christmas" means "Hymie Jewberg and his strange little beanie." Someone who maybe only needed a little nudge from Timothy McVeigh-lovin' asshole to full on arsonist. The Rude Pundit's not callin' O'Reilly "a hate-filled bucket of acidy goo which dissolves any sense of goodness or decency in order to leave nothing but the stinging shit odor of his own putrefaction."

But he isn't not callin' O'Reilly that, either.

Why Bill O'Reilly Ought to Be Sodomized with a Microphone (Blinking Edition):
Here's the bestest analysis you could desire on the Sonia Sotomayor confirmation hearings. It comes from Fox "news" host and a man who eats baby voles like peanuts, Bill O'Reilly, who was talking very seriously last night with very serious body language "expert" Tonya Reiman about Sotomayor's blinking and hand gestures (quoted in full in order to savor every delicious contour). O'Reilly first showed a clip of the judge and then:

"O'REILLY: Okay. So we had a lot of blinking there, Tonya. I should introduce Tonya. Joining us now from West Palm Beach, Florida, the body language czarina, Tonya Reiman. I got a little ahead of myself there. So anxious to hear what you have to say.

So we have fluttering of the eyes. You know, rapid blinking, as most people know if they watch The Factor, is usually associated with nervousness. And there would be no reason why the...

REIMAN: Right.

O'REILLY: ...judge shouldn't be nervous. I mean, come on. Everybody would be in that situation. But she has some fluttering. And that's what I wanted to know about.

REIMAN: Right. Well, you know what? It's funny because typically you're right, that's an indicator of anxiety of nervousness. When you're watching her, though, if you notice, if you base line her over a period of months, you will realize that's something she does all the time. That's one of her norms.

What I was looking at more was her hand movements, because typically she is a little bit more animated than she was here. Her movements were a little bit more dominant where they are normally a little bit higher up; her gestures are normally higher up.

O'REILLY: So what does that tell you? That she is consciously trying to play it down?

REIMAN: I think that she was really trying to control how she came across. One of the first things I noticed when she is asked the question about her temperament, she does this little unconscious head negation to say complete disagreement, in other words. And then I just noticed that the hand movements were kind of very low...

O'REILLY: Yes.

REIMAN: ...to the table...

O'REILLY: Yes.

REIMAN: ...yet they were open. The fingers were open, palms were down, which is of course the dominant role. And I think that she was controlled and really thinking about the movements she made.

O'REILLY: She looked to be a little hunched over to me. Does that indicate anything at all, or is it just habit? Just the way she sits?

REIMAN: No, because again I think that she typically sits like that. I noticed that in past videos I've looked at, she typically sits a little hunched over."

First off, being a "body language czarina" is like being a "three-card monte fuehrer." It's one of the easiest scams you can pull. Fuckin' Reiman even teaches a "Body Language University" (no, really). But, hell, she has "a degree in General Studies," so you know you can trust her insights. Let's hope the czarina of body language doesn't ever meet the Bolsheviks of real psychology. It can't end well for her. Mostly, though, fuck Reiman. Sister's got make a buck from the rubes, you know?

As for O'Reilly, yeah, filling forty minutes or so of show time a night has gotta be hard. 'Cause if you don't talk with some con artist who "has a passion for hypnosis" about whether or not Sen. Chuck Schumer was really choking up when he was giving Sotomayor's life story (which was the next topic after the judge), then you might have to spend more time on important issues like the Michael Jackson death story and make wildly unsubstantiated statements based on the observations of a twit.

Oh, wait, there's this exchange on Jackson's father:
"REIMAN: [W]hen he is asked about the drugs he goes from a steeple of power position to a hand folded position which tells me that he was hiding something there.

O'REILLY: All right, so there is deception in his presentation."

Ya gotta give some props to O'Reilly: Skeevy old guy and hot blonde chick? This shit is like vaudeville.

Why Bill O'Reilly Ought to Be Sodomized with a Burning Cross:
Because the Fox "news" commentator and a man who masturbates on all things chick pea-based, in his latest "Talking Points" segment, actually says about a certain left-wing organization, "It is not a stretch to say MoveOn is the new Klan."

Now the Rude Pundit's had his problems with some of the actions and even the concept of MoveOn.org (a joke he was once fond of telling: "MoveOn.org - the least you can do for democracy," but that's sooo 2004), but he's been to a fundraiser or two and a meeting or so, and he can pretty much state, without fear of contradiction, that not only was nobody wearing robes, not even presumptive Grand Wizard Eli Pariser, but he didn't hear a thing about racial purity or any purity of any sort. There were a lot of white people there, but most of them were pretending to be less white than they actually were.

He's pretty sure that all he's ever heard from MoveOn is that people should be allowed to vote and everyone should be treated equally. That's pretty much the opposite of the Klan, unless some fantasy new Klan is all about the civil rights. Oh, yeah, and MoveOn wants the motherfucking war to end, a position that enjoys national support of around two-thirds of the population, an approval rating the Klan never had even in its heyday.

So, yeah, all that and, well, shit, lynching.

O'Reilly's whipped hisself into a mad dog froth this time because MoveOn dared to protest outside Fox "news" studios about its racism towards the Obamas. Said O'Reilly, "The latest smear from MoveOn is telling their Kool-Aid drinking, zombie followers that FOX News is smearing Barack Obama and is a racist concern." Zombie followers? Irony and self-awareness are to Bill O'Reilly what antibiotics are to super-streptococcus.

Ever making himself the story, O'Reilly prattled on, "Obama must condemn organizations like MoveOn and Daily Kos if he truly wants to run without a race component. These are the people that are dividing Americans along racial lines." You got that? O'Reilly has said here's the standard, Barack Obama, and you must meet it or Bill O'Reilly will fuck your shit up. Good thing O'Reilly doesn't have anyone who he thinks will do whatever he says, like, you know, zombie-ish beings.

And the idea that if you call someone "racist" is to demonstrate that you yourself are sowing racial division is the kind of logic that'd make Aristotle say, "Oh, fuck this" and burn his books himself. You see how that works? See, when blacks in the South in the 1950s were saying that laws telling them where they could live and work and go to school were racist, they were actually fucking up because...oh, fuck, the Rude Pundit can't even get his head around this...because they made white people feel bad?

After his trollish battle screech was done, O'Reilly had on race traitor Juan Williams, one of the go-to guys whenever white people wanna prove that there's a black dude who's cool with their racism. Williams assured Whitey O'Reilly that he was a good white man and all those who say he ain't best step back.

Later: The Rude Pundit's taking a vacation next week, and he's got another awesome line-up of guest bloggers.

Why Bill O'Reilly Ought To Be Sodomized With a Microphone, Part 1647:
When Bill O'Reilly, Fox "news" commentator and a man who would know from being forcibly pulled away from a breast, sought to "analyze" the fourth anniversary of the Iraq war, he decided to do what he always does: use it as an opportunity not to mourn for the lost (which, let's face it, pro- or anti-war, is the only proper way to celebrate four years of this shit), but to attack the phantom fake liberal that he slaps blindly at every night.

First, he showed his stunning grasp of statistical analysis by noting, "According to a poll by The Times of London, 49 percent of the Iraqi people believe they are better off today than they were under Saddam; twenty-six percent say they are worse off. Another poll by USA Today and others puts the number at 43 percent, with 36 percent believing life was better under Saddam." Now, one might assume that those numbers are less than stellar. Not O'Reilly. He concludes from the results that "the polls indicate that the Iraqi people themselves, even after all they've been through, are glad the USA and Britain toppled Saddam." That's the kind of conclusion we expect from O'Reilly, the same type of logical thinking that makes a man at a bar think that because a woman brushes his arm reaching for a drink, she'll blow him in the men's room.

See, the problem is that the USA Today number of happy Iraqis is lower now than it was in November 2005, when 51% thought life was better after Saddam. And the level of happy divides pretty harshly along Sunni/Shiite lines. Still, 51% of all Iraqis do believe it's okay to attack Americans, so there's some unity there, some way for the Sunni and Shiite to join hands and sing, "Kumbaya" over a burning Black Hawk.

O'Reilly, after waving his scrotum-smelling finger in disappointment at the people of Iraq, gleefully replayed something from his radio show (Motto: "I only rip the heads off puppies on TV; I rape their corpses on the radio"). The saggy-faced bastard went after the head of the National Council of Churches, Bob Edgar, for daring to call the war "immoral." He barked at the Reverend, "You can't produce one person who's been tortured by the United States. You cannot produce one. And neither can NBC News and neither can..." Without allowing Edgar to answer, O'Reilly insisted again, "Give me one person tortured by the United States."

Smugly, O'Reilly concluded, "[T]he truth is that Guantanamo is not a torture chamber. The rights of Americans are firmly intact. And while there have been cases of criminal abuse like Abu Ghraib, the USA is waging a war on terror that is honorable."

One might be tempted to ask if it is possible to be that dense. One might be tempted to give O'Reilly the benefit of the doubt, and say, "Well, shit, maybe, just maybe, he might think that extraordinary renditioning is not technically Americans doing the torture." But fuck that.

The panty shield of fairness that O'Reilly hides behind is piss stained. But perhaps Bill O'Reilly is the right man for America now: just a thuggish bully with no regard for anything but the sticky feel of his own semen, ramming aside all semblance of reality in order to bludgeon us with his version of truth.

Four more years, motherfuckers, four more years.

Why Bill O'Reilly Ought To Be Sodomized With a Microphone, Part 83:
What a spoogebag, what a cockmonger Bill O'Reilly is. Last week, O'Reilly promised, fuckin' swore, he wasn't gonna go easy on President Bush in the "interview" O'Reilly broadcast over the past three nights, 'cause, really, so much important "truth" telling was going on that we couldn't take it all in one night. Anyone with something that approaches sentient thought knew that the truth was gonna be O'Reilly gruffly asking softball questions, that he was gonna lap dance the President until Bush got a wet spot on his pants. Sure, sure, O'Reilly asked Bush about all the pertinent issues, but, really, and, c'mon, check this shit out: Night 1-"Only five percent of the Iraqi people see the United States as liberators. Are you surprised they don't appreciate the American sacrifice more?" From Night 2 - "What’s Chirac’s problem?" From Night 3 - "One of the big propaganda things against you is the classroom in Florida after 9/11 when Andrew Card came in and whispered in your ear . . . Let’s clear this up once and for all. What were you thinking?" Jesus, O'Reilly may as well have said, "Mr. President, I have this K-Y jelly and I'm going to lube up my asshole so you can penetrate me easily. And, please, while you're back there, feel free to smack my ass like it's Kim Jong-Il's face."

Does O'Reilly really believe his own bullshit? Does he believe that he really doesn't spin anything? Does he know the definition of spin? Does he not see that the words "sacrifice," "problem," and "propaganda" are spin words in those contexts? Is he so deranged, so full of his own rightness, so egomaniacal that he doesn't understand that all he did was give Bush a safe place to spout his lies, like a crazed child psychologist who manipulates kids into saying that they were molested? What kind of depraved, fucked-up world is this when a sanctimonious idiot can actually pretend to be a tough guy but only beats up on the powerless and still have viewers? Because, in the end, O'Reilly is one of those vicious bastards who others cling to even as he degrades them because they believe their ideological proximity to O'Reilly makes them vastly superior to themselves. In other words, stupid fuckers love O'Reilly 'cause they believe he ennobles them when, really, he's just laughing and pointing, laughing and pointing.