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.