Why do I get upset about O'Reilly, anyway?

After reading blakehayden's posts, I want to withdraw my lament that too many uninformed people are voting. The system of allowing all adult citizens to have an equal voice in the government has become more appealing to me.
 
So, since we're talking about talk show hosts here, what does everyone think of Micheal Reagan?
 
marksman said:
I highly recommend The Wisdom of Crowds, a book that goes into this in much detail.
Click to expand...

I have not read the book, but looking at the Wikipedia article about it, I don't think you can really say that the current electoral system takes advantage of the wisdom of crowds. One the requisites he gives for a crowd to be wise instead merely being a stupid mob, is that people form their opinions indepedently rather than basing their opinions on the people around them. I'm not sure you can say this is an accurate description of voting, especially because of phenomena like tactical voting. For example, many Democrats in 2004 voted for Kerry in the primaries not because they thought he'd be an especially good president, but because they thought he was "electable." They seem to have been wrong, as it happens.

But ah, jokes or whatever.
 
Last edited:
He does go into voting in the book, and the conditions under which voting best takes advantage of the Wisdom of Crowds. I don't rememebr if he specificalyl addressed "tactical voiting" or not.
 
I've never done any serious research on the "wisdom of the crowd" psychology, but I have some reservations on any claimed wisdom, solely dependent on crowd size.

History has shown many examples of how crowds can be easily manipulated into believing and bending to the will of a single individual or idea. Hitler and his Party had the crowds steady behind them. Hiltler made empty promises of greatness and the crowds loved him for it. So much for the wisdom of that crowd.
 
Yes, and the book isn't a blanket approval of crowd-based ideas. It goes into great detail as to when crowds are useful and when they are not. It analyzes when crowds fail spectacularly (mobs, fascism, market bubbles) and when they work surprisingly well (juries, voting blocks, certain types of crowd-based analyses).
 
Avoiding blowhardsd

Since I work in politics, I deal with moronic statements all the time. I try to avoid them when not working. Aside from talking with my wife about my day or the news, I don't watch TV talk shows, and I avoid all of these commentators.

I don't think they believe some of the guff they spout, but they do know that if they spout hot-button garbage, they get free ink. Dennis Rodman announced he was "getting married," and turned up at St. Thomas Church in a bridal gown. Who was he marrying? "New York," he said. It was bogus, but he had a horde of news cameras there. Same with a lot of these "famous" people. Why is Kato Kaelin famous? How about Paris Hilton?

So now people are now buying Anne Coulter's book to see what all the fuss is about. She's laughing all the way to the bank.

The moral and philosophical issues, however, different. These stunts may gain ink and earn bucks, but they are dishonorable. If Coulter and these other motormouths can look at themselves in the mirror and not throw up, I'd be surprised.

It's all about getting attention, even when you don't deserve it.
 
steve s said:
Did you follow the Malmedy fiasco?
Click to expand...

I watched that segment and O'Reilly simply misstated. For those not familiar with the controversy. he attributed the 1944 Malmedy massacre to US soldiers when, in fact, it was a US artillery unit that were massacred by Waffen SS during the opening of the Battle of the Bulge.

The American unit surrendered, was loaded in a truck, taken to a field and executed. The SS drive on Antwerp was on a tight schedule without room or supplies to care for POWs. At any rate, a few soldiers survived the massacre by escaping and the massacre was also witnessed by a Belgian youth.

When word of the atrocity filtered back to American lines, it seems that on almost universal agreement, surrendering SS soldiers were executed - almost to a man. There is controversy still surrounding how many were killed and if it was on orders. At some point, orders came down from Corps (IIRC) that SS soldiers would no longer be shot surrendering on penalty of court martial. There is a somewhat famous photo of a young US soldier wearing a neclace of German ears that is believed to have been taken during the period. Many date the leaving of playing cards on the corpses of executed soldiers to the episode as well - a bit of macabre theatre most often associated with Vietnam.

Many different sources will say many different things on this issue and it was hushed up quickly. I tend to accept Stephen Ambrose's narrative paraphrased above.

Any WWII scholar would understand what O'Reilly was stating there, though it's not the most well-publicized episode of the waning days of WWII.
 
Azure said:
I haven't been listening/watching BO for that long. Hannity is definitely more of a straight-shooter, so I would imagine he would admit his mistakes.

At least they're better then 90% of the idiots on Air America. Does that program even exist anymore?
Click to expand...

I haven't seen Hannity admit any mistakes. He made a whopper mistake in his book "Let Freedom Ring" where he added percentages from one year to the next to get a a total increase over a timespan. Anyone with any smidgeon of math knowledge knows you can't do that.

No retraction yet on that item.
 
Lurker said:
I haven't seen Hannity admit any mistakes. He made a whopper mistake in his book "Let Freedom Ring" where he added percentages from one year to the next to get a a total increase over a timespan. Anyone with any smidgeon of math knowledge knows you can't do that.

No retraction yet on that item.
Click to expand...
And wasn't it one of those Air America "idiots" (Franken) who caught that?
 
Forty-Two said:
Last night, Mr. 42 and I had a late dinner out at a local pizza place. They were close to closing, so we were the only people in the dining room, and the television was tuned to The O'Reilly Factor. He was going on and on about how liberals are people who want to rid the country of all Christian traditional values and so on, setting up so many strawmen, it pained me to listen. I'm a regular viewer of "The Colbert Report," but until now I had no appreciation for how keen a satire Colbert produces.

As I listened to O'Reilly turn out absurdity after absurdity in the name of "unbiased fact," I rolled my eyes and sarcastically pointed out the obvious flaws to my husband. He started laughing and said, "The thing I find most entertaining is how seriously you're taking this."
Click to expand...

You're not cynical enough.

If I were your physician, I would put you on a straight diet of H.L Mencken, Dorothy Parker, and Frank Zappa until you got better.

But I'm not your physician, so to hell with you!
 
epepke said:
You're not cynical enough.
Click to expand...

How is it possible to be cynical enough? Just when you think you have enough cynicism to understand the strange clusterf**k that is Washington politics, the lunkheads on both sides of the aisle go and reach a new low.
 
Ladewig said:
How is it possible to be cynical enough? Just when you think you have enough cynicism to understand the strange clusterf**k that is Washington politics, the lunkheads on both sides of the aisle go and reach a new low.
Click to expand...

Good question. I've never achieved it, and I'm really cynical. I try my best, however. And I do know that when I am wrong, it's usually because I'm not cynical enough.
 
Slight threadjack:

Two days ago, I met Maddox at a signing for his book, The Alphabet of Manliness. During the Q&A segment, someone asked whether he'd gotten a response from O'Reilly, referring to Maddox's article, Bill O'Reilly is a big blubbering vagina. I had to revisit the article and link to it here if only for the "Bill O'Reilly Bingo."
 
I usually find that O'Riley is a good gauge of the truth. Everything he says is the opposite of the truth. If he says something then you automaticaly know it's false and the opposite must be true.


He said Israel was justifed in attacking the Lebanese people.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom