Bill O'Reilly Is a Boob

[CamEdwards]

The other night an aquaintance of mine named Dave Kopel (pronounced Co-puhl) was on Bill O'Reilly's show. The topic was a recent sex-ed conference at a Boulder, Colorado high school. I've never been a fan of O'Reilly, but he was so wrong on this story, and so arrogant in his bluster, that I really enjoyed Dave making him look like an arrogant boob. Here's the link to the YouTube clip:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=aql3KPnDJwA

BTW Bill... it's always nice when you know how to pronounce the name of your guest. And calling Dave Kopel a "secular progressive" is laughable. He's a highly spiritual man who probably fits the libertarian label more than anything else.

[Rizon]

In other surprising news: Lance Bass is gay.

[WVUFAN]

I saw this on the show. That Kopel guy made O'Reilly look like an idiot.

[sabotai]

The other night an aquaintance of mine named Dave Kopel (pronounced Co-puhl) was on Bill O'Reilly's show. The topic was a recent sex-ed conference at a Boulder, Colorado high school.

He's STILL talking about this? Geez...

[path12]

That Kopel guy made O'Reilly look like an idiot.

Is that hard?

[Jas_lov]

I was watching Countdown yesterday where O'Reilly hasn't apologized or corrected his story for his part in the slandering of Judge Murphy who received death threats and had his career ruined for alleging he said something about a rape victim that he never said. At least Olbermann apologized for the media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUchD6sX5kU

[cartman]

Falaffel

[stevew]

Falaffel

yeah, i was just going to ask if he managed to work that in, or Loofah.

[miami_fan]

So Bill O'Reilly is Donald Duck?

[dawgfan]

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

[Crim]

Welcome to Hollywood.

[MJ4H]

haha pwned

[CamEdwards]

Falaffel

An actual friend of mine (as opposed to an aquaintance) named Jim Geraghty was on O'Reilly's radio show during the 2004 election. They got into it about something or other, but at the end of the interview O'Reilly said something like, "I'll at least give you the last word, Jim."

To this day I've never forgiven Jim for failing to reply, "That last word, Mr. O'Reilly... is falafel."

[Ksyrup]

What's the falafel joke? I don't get it.

[MJ4H]

I think Mr. Bill has something of a "falafel fetish."

Something of a falaphiliac, he.

[sabotai]

What's the falafel joke? I don't get it.

It's a reference to the sexual harassment lawsuit against from a few years back.

[CamEdwards]

What's the falafel joke? I don't get it.

Trying to talk dirty to a fellow Fox employee... he was talking about how he'd like to get her in the shower and rub her with a loofah, but at one point he talks about rubbing the "falafel thing" on her coochie.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris16.html

[Ksyrup]

I guess I'm a poor excuse for a conservative since I don't know jack squat about the guy. I don't think I've seen more than 20 minutes of his show, and that's been with no sound on at the gym.

[sabotai]

I guess I'm a poor excuse for a conservative since I don't know jack squat about the guy.

No, it just means you're good at avoiding worthless scum. :)

[duckman]

If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...
Don't drag me into this! :p

[CamEdwards]

I guess I'm a poor excuse for a conservative since I don't know jack squat about the guy. I don't think I've seen more than 20 minutes of his show, and that's been with no sound on at the gym.

Actually, you're the type of conservative I like. :)

Though I'd like you more if you listened to my show... :D

[Buccaneer]

Actually, you're the type of conservative I like. :)

Though I'd like you more if you listened to my show... :D

and I would listen to your show if you got off the gun thing and on to more libertarianism. Someone got to tell the country that it is not all blue or red. :D

[CamEdwards]

Get off the gun thing? How dare you sir! :p

Seriously... you might check out my blog. I redesigned it a few weeks ago to focus on "nanny state" issues. It's no Reason Hit 'n' Run, but it might be somewhat up your alley.

[Buccaneer]

Thanks, I will check it out.

[Ksyrup]

and I would listen to your show if you got off the gun thing and on to more libertarianism. Someone got to tell the country that it is not all blue or red. :D

Aren't you on Sirius? I've got XM. Bring on the merger!

[Crapshoot]

Get off the gun thing? How dare you sir! :p

Seriously... you might check out my blog. I redesigned it a few weeks ago to focus on "nanny state" issues. It's no Reason Hit 'n' Run, but it might be somewhat up your alley.

Huh - funny you mention Hit'n' Run - one of my favorites. :D

[Crapshoot]

Dola,
like Bucc - I'd be more interested if you were more Dick Armey and less Tom De Lay (not that I think you are the latter). If you don't mind my asking though - didn't you mention here that you were a speaker at one of those "Defense of marriage cuz gay people are ruining it rallies"? :D

[Bubba Wheels]

O'Reilly serves a purpose. He's a crusader, a much needed hammer for traditional values in a cess-pool of secular progressives like the bought-and-paid-for by George Soros lefties (MSNBC, NBC news, CBS news, N.Y. Times...).

O'Reilly is flawed, but he really does look out for kids. Jessica's Law is touted by him (rightly so) as his finest achievement. He is not always right, being wrong on supporting the failed immigration bill, but his ratings dwarf all other cable talking heads. Like O'Reilly says himself, there is a 'culture war' and he is out to 'win.'

[Flasch186]

Jerry Springer used to get unreal ratings too....that's not saying much.

O'Reilly is a proven liar and gets caught often, up to and including his resume stating that he won the prestigious Peabody award of which he did not:

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/06/12_franken.html

some of the "Lefty" references you touted above, have in fact, won Peabody awards.

Be careful who you say is a crusader for your cause as their fall could damage that cause no matter how noble it is....

but who am I trying to tell, BW wont listen or respond to anything anyways. MO's rarely change and BW is steadfast.

By the way, BW, There are many people who have "looked out for kids" that turned out to be scum, one of which was the head of the largest Evangelical organization in the country.

[SirFozzie]

Bill O'RLY's role in the culture war is to shoot himself in the foot repeatedly and then trying to claim conscientious objector status.

BTW, welcome back Bubba. Thought your stay in the Box was permanent.

[Bubba Wheels]

Bill O'RLY's role in the culture war is to shoot himself in the foot repeatedly and then trying to claim conscientious objector status.

BTW, welcome back Bubba. Thought your stay in the Box was permanent.

LOL, kind of surprised myself. Maybe they'll get me next time.

[MJ4H]

Bill O'Reilly doesn't bother me most times, but when he gets all hot and bothered he loses objectivity rather easily. It's a pretty major flaw, but overall I still find him an interesting and sometimes insightful commentator.

[Flasch186]

Bill O'Reilly doesn't bother me most times, but when he gets all hot and bothered he loses objectivity rather easily. It's a pretty major flaw, but overall I still find him an interesting and sometimes insightful commentator.

im taking back my plug!! ;)

[MJ4H]

I can't stand Bill O'Reilly!

[DaddyTorgo]

my freaking grandparents are here and they're all conservative texas republicans. Grandma has been demanding that we watch o'reily and then hannity & colmes. It's enough to make me want to scream!

[Dutch]

Your grandparents are boobs. What could they possibly know that you don't? ;)

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Jerry Springer used to get unreal ratings too....that's not saying much.

O'Reilly is a proven liar and gets caught often, up to and including his resume stating that he won the prestigious Peabody award of which he did not:

http://www.buzzflash.com/interviews/03/06/12_franken.html

some of the "Lefty" references you touted above, have in fact, won Peabody awards.

Be careful who you say is a crusader for your cause as their fall could damage that cause no matter how noble it is....

but who am I trying to tell, BW wont listen or respond to anything anyways. MO's rarely change and BW is steadfast.

By the way, BW, There are many people who have "looked out for kids" that turned out to be scum, one of which was the head of the largest Evangelical organization in the country.


QFT. He's a liar, liar, liar, and a hypocrite. I try not to listen to any of those. He's there simply to get ratings and adds nothing close to any sensible discourse on any issue. I actually have a lot of conservative friends who used to like him, but stopped watching him a couple of years ago, especially when the loofa incident went down.

[sterlingice]

Don't drag me into this! :p

Beautifully played :D

SI

[sterlingice]

I was watching Countdown yesterday where O'Reilly hasn't apologized or corrected his story for his part in the slandering of Judge Murphy who received death threats and had his career ruined for alleging he said something about a rape victim that he never said. At least Olbermann apologized for the media.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xUchD6sX5kU

I'm torn on what Olbermann does with regards to O'Reilly. I love when he goes after him because, in comparing smarts, O'Reilly doesn't even bring a knife to the gun fight. But it does make Olbermann seem a bit petty in his sniping.

SI

[Jas_lov]

I'm torn on what Olbermann does with regards to O'Reilly. I love when he goes after him because, in comparing smarts, O'Reilly doesn't even bring a knife to the gun fight. But it does make Olbermann seem a bit petty in his sniping.

SI

I love when he goes after him too for reporting BS, although he does it seemingly every time I happen to catch Countdown so it does get a bit old. O'Reilly doesn't report facts, does whatever he can to get ratings, Olbermann calls him out, and repeat.

[Dutch]

I am always amazed at how well Keith Olbermann avoids any bias in his show.

[clintl]

I am always amazed at how well Keith Olbermann avoids any bias in his show.

Who says he's trying to? These are not news shows; they are more akin to the television version of the newspaper op-ed piece.

[Bubba Wheels]

I am always amazed at how well Keith Olbermann avoids any bias in his show.

Keith Olbermann has got to be the singular, most bought-and-paid for by George Soros (the anti-christ) talking head ever to appear on television. The strongest evidence for this is his ratings, he has none, hence this can be the only possible explanation for his continuing existence and survival on air.

I don't think I have ever heard one original thought voiced by Mr. Olbermann, whose entire act appears to be as a Soro's meat puppet spouting every single possible far-left talking point without deviation...wrapped up of course in some really bad snarky schtick written for him by others to read off the teleprompter.

I am, however, occassionally amused by Mr. Olbermann's obsessive fetish for two things: 1. Talking about Bill O'Reilly and 2. Pronouncing the President's last name as often as possible to beat the viewer over the head with the obvious double endentre of it. These seem to be the default bedrock of Mr. Olbermann's nightly telecasts and are always good for a few laughs at him, not his targets.

[JPhillips]

Uhhh, Olberman is often the highest rated show on MSNBC.

Your obsession with George Soros is funny.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

BW just entered. I'm out of here.

[Dutch]

I wonder if you think George Soros's obsessions are funny?

[Bubba Wheels]

I wonder if you think George Soros's obsessions are funny?

He is the anti-christ.

[Bubba Wheels]

Uhhh, Olberman is often the highest rated show on MSNBC.

Your obsession with George Soros is funny.

Not according to the ratings regularly posted on Drudgereport (from independent sources like USA Today) Olbermann consistantly ranks below Chris Matthews...and that's pretty low.

[JPhillips]

The ratings I've seen have either Mathews or Olberman as the top rated show depending on the day. Olberman may get a small rating compared to all of the shows on, but MSNBC would take a ratings hit if they replaced him.

I find it very funny how Soros has become this boogeyman. He's a rich guy that funds a lot of groups that he believes in. There are a number of those guys on the right, but because he's the most prominent funder of left leaning groups he's the anti-christ.

This obsession with Soros is just another sign of how bankrupt the conservative movement has become.

[Dutch]

The ratings I've seen have either Mathews or Olberman as the top rated show depending on the day. Olberman may get a small rating compared to all of the shows on, but MSNBC would take a ratings hit if they replaced him.

I find it very funny how Soros has become this boogeyman. He's a rich guy that funds a lot of groups that he believes in. There are a number of those guys on the right, but because he's the most prominent funder of left leaning groups he's the anti-christ.

This obsession with Soros is just another sign of how bankrupt the conservative movement has become.

Thankfully the left is not considered bankrupt when they go after Bill O'Reilly. Or else both sides would be with out much substance.

[sabotai]

The ratings I've seen have either Mathews or Olberman as the top rated show depending on the day. Olberman may get a small rating compared to all of the shows on, but MSNBC would take a ratings hit if they replaced him.

According the the May Nielson ratings, Countdown got a 0.6 for May 2007 and Hardball got a 0.3 (And Scarborough is at a 0.4)

http://www.mediabistro.com/tvnewser/original/may07ranker.pdf

[TargetPractice6]

Bill O'Reilly is a really spectacular boob.

[terpkristin]

Bill O'Reilly has boobs?

No pics pls k thx.

I've never had a modicum of respect for Bill O'Reilly, but when he and Geraldo were fighting awhile back (some girl had been hit by a car and killed, and it turned out that the driver was an illegal immigrant), it deeply saddened me that I had to find myself siding with Geraldo. I mean, I suppose he might be the lesser of 2 evils, but still...

/tk

[st.cronin]

I am very disappointed that this thread hasn't been parodied yet.

[JPhillips]

Thankfully the left is not considered bankrupt when they go after Bill O'Reilly. Or else both sides would be with out much substance.

There's no comparison between Olberman calling out O'Reilly as a liar and a pervert and Bubba calling Soros the anti-christ.

[Warhammer]

I am very disappointed that this thread hasn't been parodied yet.

Do we really need any of these? How many are actually funny?

[BrianD]

Do we really need any of these? How many are actually funny?

About 2/3?

[Flasch186]

Dutch:

How do you defend a lie from O'Reilly? Or his concocted resume? Regardless of anyone else, specifically talking about him, how can that be excusable no matter what?

Edit: Im not advocating lying at all and Im an equal opportunity finger pointer. the Dem. Congressman that just got indicted should be run out of town. but it seems that the acerbic feelings from some (BW) dont allow a modicum of objectivity.

[John Galt]

The bizarre attacks on Soros never cease to amaze me. As a way of personal disclosure, I am very close to a couple people who work for Soros and I, myself, have volunteered with Soros-funded organizations. What has Soros done to really deserve these attacks? He is a philanthropist that applies capitalist principles (using seed money and allowing organizations to sink or swim on their own) to funding political, humanitarian, and other non-profit organizations. He gets blamed for all sorts of things without evidence (ie - he gives no money to mediamatters directly or indirectly, but that's a favorite attack). And he does so much good for the world (his civil society grants started in Eastern Europe and which are now used worldwide have done more to promote democracy than 99% of the government initiatives that are designated for that purpose). In his old age, he has said a couple odd remarks, but I really am baffled how such a man became a boogeyman/anti-christ.

And back to the original topic in the thread, in way, shape, or form can David Kopel be considered a secular liberal. He is certainly a hack, IMO, but not for secular liberal causes.

[CamEdwards]

And back to the original topic in the thread, in way, shape, or form can David Kopel be considered a secular liberal. He is certainly a hack, IMO, but not for secular liberal causes.

A hack? I confess that I'm a little dumbfounded that that's the word you'd use to describe Dave. Care to elaborate on why you feel that way?

[John Galt]

A hack? I confess that I'm a little dumbfounded that that's the word you'd use to describe Dave. Care to elaborate on why you feel that way?

I read Kopel regularly on Volokh Conspiracy and through that his Rocky Mountain News columns. His handling of viewpoints with which he disagrees is often very poor and intellectually suspect, IMO. I also think his scholarship on the use of gun control by genocidal regimes is just not well done. He doesn't attempt to control (through analyzing different correlative/causal relationships in the data) in supporting his theory and he virtually ignores every fact or alternative explanation that doesn't support his theory. His argument may ultimately stand up to tough scrutiny, but his seeming unwillingness to really engage the tough questions makes me dubious of the larger argument. When someone tends to repeatedly overlook contrary data and/or set up opponent's arguments as strawmen, then I think that person is a bit of hack. On Volokh, he is far from the worst hack (that honor certainly goes to David Bernstein), but he is still a hack, IMO.

[CamEdwards]

Interesting. I typically don't read Volokh or the Rocky Mountain News columns, so most of what I read from Dave is based on his law review articles and the interviews I've done.

I wouldn't hold blog posts or columns to the same level of intellectual scrutiny that I would a law review article. Speaking of, I really don't see how you can say his scholarship on gun control and genocidal regimes ignores every fact or alternative explanation. "Is Resisting Genocide A Human Right?" is based on examining alternative programs and pointing out their inadequacies.

Similarly, "Does the Right to Bear Arms Impede or Promote Economic Development?" is a critique of other studies that purport to show gun control benefits the economies of 3rd world countries.

So unless we're reading two different Dave Kopels, I'm gonna have to disagree with your assertion, at least when it comes to his more scholarly works.

[dawgfan]

I have no opinion on whether Kopel is a hack or not (haven't read him), but I give him a lot of credit for going on O'Reilly's show and calling him out for his dangerous idiocy.

[John Galt]

Interesting. I typically don't read Volokh or the Rocky Mountain News columns, so most of what I read from Dave is based on his law review articles and the interviews I've done.

I wouldn't hold blog posts or columns to the same level of intellectual scrutiny that I would a law review article. Speaking of, I really don't see how you can say his scholarship on gun control and genocidal regimes ignores every fact or alternative explanation. "Is Resisting Genocide A Human Right?" is based on examining alternative programs and pointing out their inadequacies.

Similarly, "Does the Right to Bear Arms Impede or Promote Economic Development?" is a critique of other studies that purport to show gun control benefits the economies of 3rd world countries.

So unless we're reading two different Dave Kopels, I'm gonna have to disagree with your assertion, at least when it comes to his more scholarly works.

I have read many of Kope's law reviews, usually cued by his links from Volokh. So, when I was talking about his scholarship, I meant to refer to his articles and not his blog posts.

And that's actually the source of my problem. I think Kopel writes perfectly fine media pieces and although he has a definitive slant, I don't think that makes someone per se a hack. But I have a problem that Kopel produces academic scholarship that doesn't exercise sufficient rigor. His Notre Dame Law Review Article typifies my problems with his work. I'm troubled by his arguments that gun control is an important part of conducting genocide. This is a very strong argument and one that reqiures substantial evidence to prove.

At a general level, assuming you proved that gun control is strongly correlated with genocide (a claim that itself isn't wholly supported by the evidence, but one he does a decent job of establishing), there are normally considered to be a few possible causative relations: A can cause B, B can cause A, or C can cause both A and B. At the government policy level, you obviously can't control for everything and establishing causal relations is very difficult. My problem with Kopel is that instead of taking that analysis seriously, Kopel substitutes in stories and policy theories to fill in the gaps. That is Kopel gives a narrative of how gun control could have caused genocide, but the rigor is missing. In analyzing Sudan he shows how arms embargoes were correlated with genocide, how they could have plausibly contributed to the ability of the regime to commit genocide, but does little more than that. When framing arguments, Kopel treats the world as having two alternatives: total gun bans and self-defense against genocide. He glosses over the problem in Sudan and elsewhere that there was never really gun control, but rather government giving guns to supporters of genocide and taking it away from targetted groups. He substitutes actual data and rigorous analysis on this point with quotes from persons in Sudan who say they would have preferred to have guns when they were attacked (Duh!).

Kopel's argument gets much worse, IMO, when he generalizes based upon Sudan and some correlative data (I actually enjoy his general handling of Darfur and Sudan except when he does a bit of political axe-grinding in his media writing). For example, Rwanda was the last major genocide. It was also remarkable for being a very recent genocide where guns were not necessary. The butchery was conducted often with machetes that were stored in preparation for the genocide. Of course, the population would have liked guns to stave off the machete-wielders. But it wasn't gun control that left the population with no guns. And had the country had greater access to guns, it is quite likely those guns would have been horded by the government in the same way the machetes were. In such a case, the already horrible genocide could have been even more bloody.

However, instead of taking Rwanda head-on, Kopel, in his Notre Dame Law Review article just uses little details from the country to support his general argument, and focuses on the Balkans to support his larger point. Such a tactic, while completely normal and acceptable in media coverage of an issue, does not make good academic scholarship. Good academic scholarship recognizes argument shortcomings, attempts to address the shortcomings, but has to concede when facts don't fit the theory. Instead, at least IMO, addressing an issue and cherrypicking the data makes someone a bit of a hack.

[CamEdwards]

When framing arguments, Kopel treats the world as having two alternatives: total gun bans and self-defense against genocide.

I don't know how much you've read from IANSA or the UN's UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, but that really is the attitude they have: total gun bans. In fact, the UN Sub-commission's endorsed the principle that the absence of strict gun control laws is a human rights violation in and of itself.

While in the United States the gun control movement has to gain traction by using catchphrases like "common sense gun laws", internationally the move is to outlaw the civilian possession of firearms (i.e. the Brazilian Gun Ban Referendum in 2005). Not speaking for Dave, but I believe it's in that context that he's writing.

[John Galt]

I don't know how much you've read from IANSA or the UN's UN Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights, but that really is the attitude they have: total gun bans. In fact, the UN Sub-commission's endorsed the principle that the absence of strict gun control laws is a human rights violation in and of itself.

While in the United States the gun control movement has to gain traction by using catchphrases like "common sense gun laws", internationally the move is to outlaw the civilian possession of firearms (i.e. the Brazilian Gun Ban Referendum in 2005). Not speaking for Dave, but I believe it's in that context that he's writing.

That's why I say he does better as a reactionary writer. He does fine in a scholarly environment picking at proposals or claims (although I think he often makes distinctions without differences or picks at meaningless nits). However, when it comes time to put together a theory about how the world works based upon empirical evidence, he falls short (and he exposes some hack-tendencies). The idea that gun control is an important part of committing genocide is an interesting argument. But if you make that argument by leaving out contrary evidence, taking an empirical approach but then using anecdotes to cover weak spots, or otherwise not engaging in serious academic rigor, then you have entered hack territory. That doesn't make Kopel unusual - there are lots of academic hacks. And perhaps he should be given some leeway because he isn't an academic. But, in the end, Kopel has decided to publish in legal academic journals and that means he should be held to a standard, that while not always followed, is worth following.

I have nothing personally against Kopel or his arguments. I think it's great that he stuck it to an empty talking head like O'Reilly. The reason I started reading his scholarship is because I found some of the ideas to be very interesting. His scholarship is totally out of my normal reading habits and areas of expertise, but I thought enough to read his stuff. I'm not really committed to any strong view in the gun control debate and I found the international aspect especially intriguing. But at the end of the day, I just didn't think he got past the point of having a novel argument by actually proving that argument.

[flere-imsaho]

I'm glad to see this thread is going the way of the Warhammer - Mr.B thread on Global Warming (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=58970), as opposed to the downward spiral it could have gone in.

[CamEdwards]

I'm glad to see this thread is going the way of the Warhammer - Mr.B thread on Global Warming (http://www.operationsports.com/fofc/showthread.php?t=58970), as opposed to the downward spiral it could have gone in.


Crap. I better call JG a "poopyhead" to maintain my credibility.


However, when it comes time to put together a theory about how the world works based upon empirical evidence, he falls short (and he exposes some hack-tendencies). The idea that gun control is an important part of committing genocide is an interesting argument. But if you make that argument by leaving out contrary evidence, taking an empirical approach but then using anecdotes to cover weak spots, or otherwise not engaging in serious academic rigor, then you have entered hack territory.


I guess here's where I ask if you can provide some of the contrary evidence to what Kopel's suggesting. Further, I don't really see Kopel as advancing an empirical approach that ONLY gun control has led to genocide. I see it more along the lines of advancing the argument that A) the UN is powerless to stop genocide, B) genocidal goverments often use existing gun control laws or pass new ones to disarm civilian populations, so either we in democratic countries need to be either more pro-active in trying to stop genocides from occuring (even if it means technically violating international law), and acknowledge that victims of genocide have a right to self-defense (with the corrollary that the best tool for self-defense is a firearm).

Maybe I'm just reading it with a friendly eye since I like Dave personally and I agree with him ideologically. I certainly won't pretend to be able to read law review articles with the same eye that an attorney does. I'm just not seeing the "hackery". :)

[John Galt]

Crap. I better call JG a "poopyhead" to maintain my credibility.



I guess here's where I ask if you can provide some of the contrary evidence to what Kopel's suggesting. Further, I don't really see Kopel as advancing an empirical approach that ONLY gun control has led to genocide. I see it more along the lines of advancing the argument that A) the UN is powerless to stop genocide, B) genocidal goverments often use existing gun control laws or pass new ones to disarm civilian populations, so either we in democratic countries need to be either more pro-active in trying to stop genocides from occuring (even if it means technically violating international law), and acknowledge that victims of genocide have a right to self-defense (with the corrollary that the best tool for self-defense is a firearm).

Maybe I'm just reading it with a friendly eye since I like Dave personally and I agree with him ideologically. I certainly won't pretend to be able to read law review articles with the same eye that an attorney does. I'm just not seeing the "hackery". :)

Well, the primary contrary evidence I was annoyed about him omitting was in his selective use of Rwanda. Rwanda really points to the seeming irrelevance of guns and gun control to genocide. He may have many counter-arguments, but it is such a glaring example (which he uses selectively), that you can't just ignore it. Similarly, if you think what happened in Iraq was genocide (an open question under international law), then you need to address why that country has ridiculously high rates of gun ownership. There are lots of other details like that (ie he really glosses over whether guaranteeing a right to self-defense would actually create access to guns for victims of genocide - after all the right against genocide hasn't done crap under his argument).

The point is that he could have made these caveats in the piece to make more intellectually rigorous and honest. However, like many (if not most authors), he chose to stick with a "punchy" version of his argument that didn't have so many wrinkles and exceptions. If he had written the soft argument, he probably wouldn't have been published so well (law students tend to like punchy arguments) and he wouldn't have received as much attention. That is why being a hack has so much appeal. :)

As for whether you can see hack-ness with people who agree with you, it's hard. I've written a few law review articles now. And looking back at a couple of my early pieces, I see a lot of hack-ness in my own writing. At the time I didn't, but now I do. But I think the best academic writers learn to see past their own biases by being very self-critical. It is much easier to see intellectual dishonesty in your opponents, but seeing it in yourself or your friends is much more beneficial, IMO, to being a "good" academic.

Cam is a wanker. :p

[CamEdwards]

Okay, in skimming through the Notre Dame Law Review article, it doesn't really seem that Rwanda is used as evidence of gun control leading to genocide as much as it is used as a point of reference for lack of action by the UN to stop genocide (even when there are warning signs). He does mention gun control laws put in place in the 1960's and 1970's that had disarmed most of the civilian populace, and maybe that should have been more thoroughly explored if it was going to be referenced, but I think you're being a tad nitpicky.

First time you've ever been accused of that, huh? :p

[John Galt]

Okay, in skimming through the Notre Dame Law Review article, it doesn't really seem that Rwanda is used as evidence of gun control leading to genocide as much as it is used as a point of reference for lack of action by the UN to stop genocide (even when there are warning signs). He does mention gun control laws put in place in the 1960's and 1970's that had disarmed most of the civilian populace, and maybe that should have been more thoroughly explored if it was going to be referenced, but I think you're being a tad nitpicky.

First time you've ever been accused of that, huh? :p

While I'm probably nitpicky for talking about the instances where Kopel mentions Rwanda, I don't think I'm nitpicky about when he omits Rwanda. Even if he didn't mention Rwanda in the whole article, I don't know how you can write a good scholarly article about how modern genocides are facilitated by gun control and only talk about Sudan and the Balkans. The omission is especially notable because Rwanda was remarkable for being the "fastest" genocide in history (more deaths in a limited time than any other genocide) even though guns were not pivotal to that killing or would have entered into the defense. Similarly, the high armament rates in Iraq seemingly did little to stop the possible genocide there. In an academic piece, you just shouldn't ignore the facts that don't fit the theory.

[bulletsponge]

how did this thread go from Bill O'Reillys boobs to genocide in Rwanda?

[Karlifornia]

I'm enjoying the banter between Cam and John Galt....keep it going, gentlemen!

[CamEdwards]

I'll keep it going, but it'll be tomorrow before I have a chance to respond in depth.

As for how this went from O'Reilly to Rwanda... where exactly WAS Bill when the genocide was occuring? :p

[Glengoyne]

He is the anti-christ.

Was Karl Rove demoted?

[BishopMVP]

While I'm probably nitpicky for talking about the instances where Kopel mentions Rwanda, I don't think I'm nitpicky about when he omits Rwanda. Even if he didn't mention Rwanda in the whole article, I don't know how you can write a good scholarly article about how modern genocides are facilitated by gun control and only talk about Sudan and the Balkans. The omission is especially notable because Rwanda was remarkable for being the "fastest" genocide in history (more deaths in a limited time than any other genocide) even though guns were not pivotal to that killing or would have entered into the defense. Similarly, the high armament rates in Iraq seemingly did little to stop the possible genocide there. In an academic piece, you just shouldn't ignore the facts that don't fit the theory.In the 2 cases you point out, it would seem to be that (gun) control wasn't the problem, but (deadly weapon) control was. In Rwanda, the government horded machetes, and in Iraq the government controlled access to attack helicopters. So it's not necessarily guns, but rather whatever weapon is readily available to the government but denied to the populace eventually targeted for genocide, guns often being the implement in question. (Sudan would seem to support this, but isn't as clear-cut. IDK enough about the Balkans.)

This argument certainly is flawed in different places (the U.S. Government prohibiting me from possessing Stealth Fighters/Bombers is merely a minor pet peeve), but it would seem if you focus more on the general theme that the right to self-defense should be considered inalienable and that guns are merely the most prominent, or at least the easiest implement for self-defense that might eliminate some of your complaint.

If the debate is more about what is considered scholarly enough for an academic piece, I got nothing.

[CamEdwards]

I think you make a good point, especially because the UN opposes transfers of small arms and light weapons to Non-State Actors. Basically, if a country wanted to supply arms (whether it be machetes, machine guns, RPG's, etc.) to the genocide victims in Darfur (or going back a few years, to the victims in Rwanda, or to the Kurds in Iraq) the UN would be strongly opposed to that. The process for a treaty on small arms and light weapons (which would include a ban on transfers of SALW to NSA's) ended in failure last summer, but many member nations including Canada and the United Kingdom are trying to work outside of the UN to draft such a treaty, then introduce into the General Assembly.

[bulletsponge]

I'll keep it going, but it'll be tomorrow before I have a chance to respond in depth.

As for how this went from O'Reilly to Rwanda... where exactly WAS Bill when the genocide was occuring? :p

playing with his boobs?

[sabotai]

O'Reilly always reminds me of this quote

"He who establishes his argument by noise and command shows that his reason is weak."
-Michel de Montaigne

[waltwal]

I am pretty conservative but i knew after a minute or 2 that O'reilley's staff had failed to read the whole transcript of what took place at Boulder and i am pretty sure that there was some serious yelling that went on after that show by O'Reilley at his research staff.

I generally agree with most of O'Reilley's viewpoints but not all but i am often put off by his attitude of self-importance. However that being said he has an entertaining show and certainly wipes out the competition in terms of ratings.

I think the Clinton's have shown us tho that you never apologize for anything under any circumstances. O'Reilley simply felt he had to yell his way out of the Boulder interview. Most of the time when he attempts to shout down the opposition i think it is more a case of genuine anger but in this case I think he quickly saw that he was on shaky ground and had to bluster.

[JPhillips]

Clinton made a career of apologizing for things.

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc-sp1.html

[URL="http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/impeachment/apology.shtml"[/URL]

http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/New/Remarks/Fri/19970516-898.html

"United States... support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression... was wrong."
-- United States President Bill Clinton, last Wednesday

You don't have to like them, but saying the Clinton's never apologize for anything is factually incorrect.

[Jas_lov]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=g6cT-JSfdzM

Anyone see this where a 16 year old kid uses O'Reilly's own game against him? O'Reilly resorted to shouting over the guest and calling him names like usual, but this time it was a high school kid. The funniest thing about this whole thing may be that the Andrew kid O'Reilly got to defend his side didn't even attend the assembly.

[SFL Cat]

Clinton made a career of apologizing for things.

http://www.zpub.com/un/un-bc-sp1.html

[URL="http://www.australianpolitics.com/usa/clinton/impeachment/apology.shtml"[/URL]

http://clinton4.nara.gov/textonly/New/Remarks/Fri/19970516-898.html

"United States... support for military forces or intelligence units which engaged in violent and widespread repression... was wrong."
-- United States President Bill Clinton, last Wednesday



You don't have to like them, but saying the Clinton's never apologize for anything is factually incorrect.

Ummm, didn't follow the links, but as for what you quoted...technically, that's not an apology.

[CamEdwards]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=g6cT-JSfdzM

Anyone see this where a 16 year old kid uses O'Reilly's own game against him? O'Reilly resorted to shouting over the guest and calling him names like usual, but this time it was a high school kid. The funniest thing about this whole thing may be that the Andrew kid O'Reilly got to defend his side didn't even attend the assembly.

"It's on Page 67, Bill..." that was great.

[Karlifornia]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=g6cT-JSfdzM

Anyone see this where a 16 year old kid uses O'Reilly's own game against him? O'Reilly resorted to shouting over the guest and calling him names like usual, but this time it was a high school kid. The funniest thing about this whole thing may be that the Andrew kid O'Reilly got to defend his side didn't even attend the assembly.

O'PWND

[Bonegavel]

And had the country had greater access to guns, it is quite likely those guns would have been horded by the government in the same way the machetes were. In such a case, the already horrible genocide could have been even more bloody.


So doesn't this assertion help bolster the gun control point? And you are saying the government horded the machetes? Same thing, different weapon. If the machetes weren't horded by the government, could that have helped the people fight back?

[John Galt]

So doesn't this assertion help bolster the gun control point? And you are saying the government horded the machetes? Same thing, different weapon. If the machetes weren't horded by the government, could that have helped the people fight back?

I'm not sure I understand your point. My point is that in Rwanda and oppressive government who wanted to commit genocide didn't need gun control because there were no guns to control (mostly because of poverty). Had there been attempts to import guns into the country (Kopel's idea by virtue of making self-defense a "right"), I have little doubt that the government would have horded those like they did the machetes. That means Kopel's solution really wouldn't have had any effect on the fastest genocide in history.

[ISiddiqui]

http://youtube.com/watch?v=g6cT-JSfdzM

Anyone see this where a 16 year old kid uses O'Reilly's own game against him? O'Reilly resorted to shouting over the guest and calling him names like usual, but this time it was a high school kid. The funniest thing about this whole thing may be that the Andrew kid O'Reilly got to defend his side didn't even attend the assembly.

LOL... that was brilliant. I'm sure O'Reilly had no clue that Jesse was going to be so prepared, even having quotes from his own book to refute O'Reilly with. Awesome stuff.

[sterlingice]

LOL... that was brilliant. I'm sure O'Reilly had no clue that Jesse was going to be so prepared, even having quotes from his own book to refute O'Reilly with. Awesome stuff.

Yes, 16 year olds can tell when you're a tool!

SI

[flere-imsaho]

Ah, the old hits.... (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/1013043mackris1.html)

If any woman ever breathed a word I'll make her pay so dearly that she'll wish she'd never been born. I'll rake her through the mud, bring up things in her life and make her so miserable that she'll be destroyed. And besides, she wouldn't be able to afford the lawyers I can or endure it financially as long as I can. And nobody would believe her, it'd be her word against mine and who are they going to believe? Me or some unstable woman making outrageous accusations. They'd see her as some psycho, someone unstable. Besides, I'd never make the mistake of picking unstable crazy girls like that.

During the course of O'REILLY's telephone monologue on August 2, 2004, he suggested that Plaintiff ANDREA MACKRIS purchase a vibrator and name it, and that he had one "shaped like a cock with a little battery in it" that a woman had given him. It became apparent that Defendant was masturbating as he spoke. After he climaxed, Defendant O'REILLY said to Plaintiff: "I appreciate the fun phone call. You can have fun tonight. I'll appreciate it. I mean it."

And the famous falafel:

So anyway I'd be rubbing your big boobs and getting your nipples really hard, kinda' kissing your neck from behind ... and then I would take the other hand with the falafel (sic) thing and I'd put it on your pussy but you'd have to do it really light, just kind of a tease business...

Do people really take this guy seriously anymore?

[sabotai]

Do people really take this guy seriously anymore?

Yes, they do.

[Vinatieri for Prez]

Actually, I had a guy at work who loved O'Reilly. Thought his no nonsense approach and refusal to let people duck questions were admirable. I would call this guy a principled non-political conservative who can see political bullshit from a mile away -even from Republicans (not surprisingly, he pretty much votes Republican across the board in the past.) I think he even bought his book. When he heard about the falafel stuff, he stopped watching or reading O'Reilly. It restored my faith in humanity. In talking with the guy, he is really struggling with how to vote next time around. He can't stand "liberals" but he has just been aghast the last year or so with all the shit that is happening with the war, the administration, etc.

[sterlingice]

Actually, I had a guy at work who loved O'Reilly. Thought his no nonsense approach and refusal to let people duck questions were admirable. I would call this guy a principled non-political conservative who can see political bullshit from a mile away -even from Republicans (not surprisingly,
he pretty much votes Republican across the board in the past.)
I think he even bought his book.
When he heard about the falafel stuff, he stopped watching or reading O'Reilly. It restored my faith in humanity. In talking with the guy, he is really struggling with how to vote next time around.
He can't stand "liberals" but he has just been aghast the last year or so with all the shit that is happening with the war, the administration, etc.

The latter four bolded statements are all at odds with the first... but who's keeping track.

SI