As Senator Joseph Lieberman seeks to secure the Democratic Party's nomination in Connecticut a question must be asked, one that becomes more increasingly relevant with each passing day.  With Lieberman expressing concern that so many members of his party on the important issue of values, he has made a prominent new ally.  

This new alliance not only begs an important question, it presages a more involved discussion of the direction where Senator Lieberman is taking America.  It lies at the heart of where the Democratic Party stands and the ideological ground it should encompass in the future.  

It must also be asked whether Lieberman and others like him are part of a unilateral disarmament movement to enable the Cheney-Bush style of radical Republicanism to reign unchallenged.

As has been noted, Lieberman has made a recent ally of Fox News right wing Republican commentator Sean Hannity.  On one of his recent appearances Lieberman expressed concern that so many in his party do not understand traditional American values.  The Fox commentator was only too happy to agree.

Professors should beware.  That is any professors to the left of Fox News, since anyone failing to heed and speak the devout word is in the sights of David Horowitz, the self-anointed head of the Thought Police maintaining watchdog status over academia.

According to Horowitz there are 50,000 college and university professors currently endangering students with exposure to anti-American propaganda.  Since this is a tall order for even as devoted a right wing zealot as Horowitz to handle at one time, he has concentrated his efforts on those he deems to be the 101 leading malefactors.

The Horowitz crusade takes the form of a propaganda-laden book entitled The Professors:  The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America.  Assuming equal interest to the author's background and agenda is the identity of the publisher, Alfred Regnery, also known, and with good reason, as "the right wing publishing ghetto."  

One work that emerged as a gigantic bestseller released by Regnery was Unlimited Access, written by former CIA operative Gary Aldrich.  

Professors should beware.  That is any professors to the left of Fox News, since anyone failing to heed and speak the devout word is in the sights of David Horowitz, the self-anointed head of the Thought Police maintaining watchdog status over academia.

According to Horowitz there are 50,000 college and university professors currently endangering students with exposure to anti-American propaganda.  Since this is a tall order for even as devoted a right wing zealot as Horowitz to handle at one time, he has concentrated his efforts on those he deems to be the 101 leading malefactors.

One work that emerged as a gigantic bestseller released by Regnery was Unlimited Access, written by former CIA operative Gary Aldrich.  

The author disclosed that while in the White House Hillary Clinton decorated the national Christmas tree with pornographic ornaments while Bill snuck away from his Secret Service detail in the wee hours of the morning and walked by himself to the Marriott Hotel a few blocks away on Pennsylvania Avenue to engage in secret trysts with young women.  

Former right wing author-propagandist David Brock, who ultimately broke away from the Fox-Scaife-Limbaugh-Reveren d Moon axis, revealed that he was the "source" that Aldrich thought reliable enough to use for the Bill Clinton "disclosure."  

Brock explained that he disclosed to Aldrich that such a rumor was making the rounds, which was good enough for both the author and his publisher, even though Brock stressed that it was unconfirmed.  

When employees at the Marriott were interviewed in connection with the Aldrich charge by the media, raucous laughter was the response.  As one employee stated, "How could President Clinton come and go in the early hours when our lobby is virtually empty without being discovered?"

Despite no evidence being forthcoming to substantiate either absurd charge, Alfred Regnery stuck by both revelations and the work became a bestseller icon to the hate Clinton crowd.  Regnery also was noted for providing that historian of probity and incisive accuracy, Ann Coulter, with an early showcase to try out some of her earliest "traitor" lines in print.

Horowitz fits comfortably into the aforementioned tradition, a former Marxist firebrand who merely traded brands of extremist thought.  

It is significant how many times this occurs, only to find the right douse their newly devoted converts with an appropriate holy water welcome.  The right's leading voices assert that a watershed conversion has occurred when in reality a troubled fanatic has no more than begun reading from a different script.

Two of the accused professors have responded recently to Horowitz's charges while, in recent Amazon.com reviews, students have come to the defense of others, relying on a firsthand experience unknown to Horowitz.  

One of the professors Horowitz singled out was Professor David Barash of the University of Washington.  Considering the topic Barash chose for his latest book, Horowitz's suspicions are understandable.  

The psychology professor, who teaches a course in Ideas of Human Nature, dared to co-author a book on Peace and Conflict Studies, crossing paths with the neoconservative agenda embraced by Horowitz natural allies such as Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and Richard Perle.  

"Some of the assertions in Horowitz's book are flat-out lies," Barash wrote in an e-mail, the contents of which were published in The Daily, Washington University's campus newspaper.  "He evidently didn't bother to read my Peace and Conflict Studies book, but simply took it as an occasion to agitate."

Barash tackled the crux of the issue in stating, "I've never made any bones about my personal politics, but I also think it's very important that I don't expect my students to agree with me."  Barash noted that, while it might be true that in social work and the humanities there might be a "left bias," he conjectures that "the exact opposite is true in engineering schools or business."

Taking up a related point was another individual singled out for rebuke by Horowitz, Professor Robert W. McChesney of the University of Illinois.  

Considering that McChesney has been an articulate critic of the current monopoly of the mainstream media by the likes of Fox and Clear Channel, and co-authored with John Nichols the incisive work Tragedy:  How The American Media Sells Wars, Spin Elections, and Destroy Democracy, he would thereby loom as a conspicuous Horowitz target.

After all, don't O'Reilly, Hannity and their Fox colleagues insist that the network is objective and is criticized only because they refuse to sell out to the left?  This is the message that the propaganda machine, of which Horowitz plays an ardent part, has attempted to inculcate into the minds of Americans.

McChesney, in responding to Horowitz's attack on the website CommonDreams.org, cited the prevalence of staunchly conservative thought in an area where Horowitz has never treaded, that of the U.S. military.  

"Generals and military officers are far more important (than professors) to the functioning of a government," McChesney wrote, "and, as history shows in depressingly frequent detail, a much greater threat to democratic governance than anthropology professors.  In the United States the military is enormous, it is entirely funded by taxpayers, and the officer corps is significantly right-wing Republican.  There is hardly a liberal Democrat in the bunch, and I dare say probably not a single soul to the left of the Clinton-Kerry center of the Democratic Party."

McChesney, a shrewd media critic who knows undiluted propaganda when he observes it, finds it "revealing that Horowitz uses the term `dangerous' as a pejorative in his book's subtitle.  Dangerous professors are those with ideas with which Horowitz disagrees.  This is a ludicrously opportunistic and undemocratic framing.  The entire premise of a viable democratic public sphere is that what some perceive as `dangerous' ideas be protected, even encouraged, and permitted to be thrown into debate.  Especially, above all else, in universities."

If there is one thing that Horowitz and his ideological allies do not want it is a free marketplace of ideas.  What troubles Horowitz is that there are those that dare to think rather than fall into the tidy pattern of Fox zombies, docilely accepting the communicative Big Brother's message of the moment, whether it be disseminated by Horowitz, Limbaugh, Coulter or Hannity.  

The phrase "dare to think" is a toxic to the likes of Horowitz.  If you dare to stand up for the First Amendment and freedom to worship or not to do so without government interference, if you believe that the government has no right to intrude into an individual's thoughts or bedroom, known traditionally as a right of privacy, or if you believe that searches should be preceded by warrants from magistrates, or that the Nuremberg and UN charters along with the Geneva Code should all be followed under both U.S. and international law, then Horowitz and his thought police have news for you.

The foregoing used to be regarded as bedrock constitutional principles by both traditional John Stuart Mill liberals as well as Edmund Burke conservatives.  To adhere to these principles currently is to invite at least suspicion, perhaps investigation, and maybe prosecution under the dire Orwellian warning, "We are at war!  You are making the world safer for terrorists!"    

There are more and more efforts out there to lobby the companies that advertise on right-wing talk shows to get them to pull their ads. This is an approach that I have advocated for some time based on the fact that this is how groups like the NRA and moral majority have been so successful in dictating the national dialogue. Their constant lobbying not just of politicians but of businesses and advertisers mean that they get listened to and we don't. I am urging you to join me and dozens of others in the blogsphere to fight back and use your consumer and investor muscle to pressure companies to avoid right wing talk shows when they are considering where to spend their advertising dollars. This particular push is about a week old and already we are seeing some signs that we are being noticed. But we need more numbers!

This is absolutely unbelievable.  Bill O'Reilly is accusing people who call his public on-air radio show of harassment.  And these callers did not say anything obscene or threatening, they just mentioned two magic words -- "Keith Olbermann." (O'Reilly has been "feuding" with MSNBC's Olbermann, who has been successful at getting under O'Reilly's skin).

Not only that, O'Reilly has persuaded Fox's Security department to contact these callers and intimidate them.

Two people have described the ordeal on Daily Kos:

Charlie Reina, a former producer at Fox News wrote an open letter to Bill O'Reilly on the media site, Romenesko.

He asks for an invitation to appear on O'Reilly's show. He better make it quick. At the rate O'Reilly's ratings are dropping, no one will see his appearance.

Dear Bill:

I just watched a clip from Monday's "Factor" featuring Eric Burns, the host of your network's media criticism show, News Watch. During the segment, you implored Eric to fire one of his panelists, Neal Gabler, whom you called a "rabid dog" and described as "cowardly" for declining an invitation to appear on your show. Since not a word was said in Neal's defense, I would appreciate an opportunity to do so as a guest on the "Factor."

As you know, I was the producer of "News Watch" from its inception in 1997 until I left FNC six years later. (By the way, thank you for complimenting "News Watch." I'm sure I speak for all of us responsible for making it exactly what it is today, the best show in FNC's weekend lineup.) Neal joined us in 2002, replacing Jeff Cohen in the panel's "liberal" chair. Like Jeff, he took seriously management's implicit "hands-off" pledge to News Watch, and he clearly has felt free to criticize Fox during debates on the show. For the most part, Fox has made good on its pledge, and I would hate to think that Neal's job is in jeopardy now just because he offended the network's highest-rated personality.

Bill, I know that you don't engage in personal attacks, so I'm sure the "rabid dog" thing was merely a bit of hyperbole - nothing more serious than, say, calling a harmless blowhard a "demagogue." But it was disappointing to see your characterization of Neal as a coward go unchallenged. As you know, people of all stripes often refuse to appear on programs for reasons other than cowardice - for instance, when they consider the show or its host or other guests beneath their dignity. A case in point: Brent Bozell of the Media Research Center won't appear on any show alongside Jeff Cohen. At least, that's what Bozell told us when we invited him to fill the "News Watch" panel's "conservative" seat one week and he turned us down flat.

There are many other examples we can discuss. And I'm not even including cases in which hosts declare topics taboo after they've had their say on them. If you invite me, I promise not to raise any subject you may have vowed never to speak of again. I would, though, like to discuss - in general terms, of course -- other acts that happen in and around television newsrooms which might be considered cowardly. For instance, a physically-imposing on-air personality publicly humiliating a staffer so cruelly that she can no longer return to work. Or a network public relations department so depraved that it sets out, behind the scenes, on a campaign to destroy the career of another channel's rising on-air star. Or a network executive who feels free to embarrass a vulnerable young anchorwoman by ogling her legs on a public escalator as others watch.

Anyway, Bill, I think we could have a really eye-opening discussion. Properly promoted, it could raise your already-astronomical numbers a notch. And it might even do me some good. Remember when I agreed to have you on "News Watch" so you could promote one of your novels? If you return the favor, the book I'm writing could wind up a best-seller.

All the best.

Charlie Reina

Wonder if Reina will get an invite to appear on O'Reilly's show? Nah. O'Reilly's too cowardly. UPDATE: O'Reilly is even more cowardly than I thought. People who call his show and mention MSNBC's Keith Obelman is getting a follow up call from Fox News Security. Link to adigal's account and Mike Stark's.

"President Bush fired the guy, the former chef, for serving scallops. I'm thinking, well, gosh, is this the guy he should be firing? What about those guys who got us into Iraq? Why didn't he fire those guys?"

-- David Letterman 01/03/06

In the recent late-night scuffle twixt 'Sheehan-defending' Letterman and 'Sheehan-bashing' O'Reilly, a particularly disturbing accusation was made by the scurvy one -- a charge that should burn the senses of all who hold the capacity to think beyond the scope of "your either with us or against us." O'Reilly said:

"The soldiers and Marines are noble. They're not terrorists. And when people call them that, like Cindy Sheehan called the insurgents 'freedom fighters', we don't like that."

O'Reilly makes two detestable implications. 1) That Cindy Sheehan and 'people' like her consider our troops terrorists, and 2) That Cindy Sheehan and 'people' like her consider the insurgents the real 'freedom fighters' -- even favoring insurgents over our own troops.

What filth! Of course I can't speak for Cindy any more than Bill O'Reilly can, but I think it's safe to assume that O'Reilly's implications were of the purest quality horseshit that any horse's ass could offer -- and one certainly did.

"A kid from Florida is like 16 years old. He runs away from home and goes to Iraq. He wanted to see what it was like. His family was from Iraq. He wanted to see what it was like. He spent three weeks over there. Then he came home. At least he had an exit strategy."

-- David Letterman 01/03/06

In an atypical display of noncomedic guts, David Letterman took a bold stand on American involvement in Iraq. Even tastier, he did it as he pounded his deserving guest, Bill O'Reilly.

In particular, he took issue with O'Reilly's derision of grieving 'war mother', Cindy Sheehan and Bush's decision to invade Iraq. He was careful to note that we ALL support our troops and that now that we're in Iraq, we must do what we have to do. In so doing, he repeats a question as yet conspicuously unanswered -- "Why are we there in the first place?"

Until now I have been ignoring the "War on Christmas". It seemed to be based on senseless pandering for listeners or readers of arch-conservative morons like Bill O'Reilly.

I know that our Representatives like to introduce fluff bills like "A Tribute to Don Ho" or "Supporting the National Motto of the United States."  

But in the midst of Torture amendments, the Iraq War, the abandonment of Katrina victims, revelations of NSA spying, fighting cloture on the Patriot Act and various other issues this just took a step beyond ludicrous.

R.J. Eskow has a delightfully scathing piece about plagiarist Ann Coulter and the pathetic, hypocritical whining noises she made to the Terrorist Sympathizer this week.

Somebody quick call Bill O'Reilly!

Get me Jerry Falwell!

George and Laura Bush have joined The Evil One in the War On Christmas! So has the Republican National Committee!

Via Media Matters:

   O'REILLY: What's happened is frightening. A legal assault by the ACLU [American Civil Liberties Union] combined with the media that blatantly promotes secularism has succeeded in convincing some Americans that the words 'Merry Christmas' are inappropriate while celebrating the national holiday of Christmas.

    This, of course, is nuts. Anyone offended by the words 'Merry Christmas' has problems not even St. Nicholas could solve.

    Every company in America should be on its knees thanking Jesus for being born. Without Christmas, most American businesses would be far less profitable; more than enough reason for businesses to be screaming Merry Christmas.

Good, God.

TV and radio personality, Bill O'Reilly, is back-peddling hard from his recent statements that have so revolted Americans -- that calls for him to be fired from his privileged position on the public airwaves are persisting into a second week.

But rather than defend or apologize for his remarks, O'Reilly is desperately lashing out at his critics. He says they are "anti-American."

But Americans are wise to O'Reilly, who is increasingly being described as a "blowhard."

I'm not much for diary entries, but I want to revive a recent call to arms that exemplifies my passion for the online community: solidarity in action.

Call it Operation Felafel Revisited if you want, just make sure you spread the word.  

Page over.

cross-posted at Daily Kos

***Edit : just noticed that topic is covered in a recommended diary from saturday still on the list .. considering deletion .. please weigh in in comments section***

On November 8, 2005 Bill O'Reilly aired a radio broadcast that will live in infamy.

It seems that O'Reilly didn't like it that San Franciscans exercised their constitutional rights and passed a non-binding ballot measure urging high schools and colleges to ban military recruiting on campus. So does he criticize them? Call for a boycott? No. He says that the the American armed forces should not defend San Francisco and that Al Qeada should go ahead and attack.

His named target? The landmark Coit Tower, a monument dedicated to the heroic firefighters who fought to save San Francisco after the great earthquake a century ago.