Bill O'Reilly is a Big, Fat, Splotchy Dunderheaded Thug
As noted, yesterday the NYTimes carried an op-ed piece from Bruce Springsteen, who explained why he was undertaking a concert tour with a number of other artists (like Dave Matthews, Dixie Chicks, and Pearl Jam) to focus fans' energy on ousting the Bush administration. In it, he said he'd always "stayed one step away from partisan politics. Instead, I have been partisan about a set of ideals: economic justice, civil rights, a humane foreign policy, freedom and a decent life for all of our citizens."

Last night, I got home and tortured myself, as I do from time to time, with a touch of Fox News. Though I always get pissed and start shouting at the screen (last night was no exception, as Parie can attest as she walked up the steps to our front door from work), I feel the need to see what the enemy is doing. I was lucky enough to snap on the O'Really Factor right at the beginning to catch his the "Talking Points Memo" portion of the show (where he essentially reads a daily column that's also presented in text on the screen so you don't miss any of it). Last night's topic was The Boss, and what a two-faced, Beverly Hills millionaire he is. This is my favorite passage:

The singer goes on to ask, "Why is it that the wealthiest nation in the world finds it so hard to keep its promise and faith with its weakest citizens?"

What exactly does that mean? The USA spends approximately $315 billion a year on entitlements to help the poorest Americans. Education spending is at record levels and so is medical spending. What is Springsteen talking about?

Perhaps his next words give us a clue. "We granted tax cuts to the richest one percent ... increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of 'one nation indivisible.'"

Notice Bruce baby left out "under God" from that quotation from the pledge. But his message is clear. Springsteen apparently believes the government has a right to divide wealth.

This of course is nuts. Wealth is obtained in a free marketplace or by inheritance. Under our capitalistic system, the government has no right to divide any private holdings, be they property or income. Socialistic governments divide wealth. Capitalistic governments do not.

What?!?!?! Oh, yes, that's right. I remember Mr. Springsteen has always been a pinko commie, continually singing about collective farms and five-year plans (that's the theme of One Step Up from Tunnel of Love, right?).

I'm was utterly speechless when I hear this insinuation last night. Because that's not Springsteen's point (hardly). The more our nation becomes divided economically, the more our nation as a whole is divided politically, socially, and spritually. I'm in the midst of reading Robert Reich's Reason: Why Liberals Will Win the Battle for America, which (as the title may suggest) a very thoughtful comparison of conservative and liberal values without all the shouting you get on O'Really and Hannity & Tool. Here's a passage about the state of wealth distribution in America today (note that Reich's term for the neoconservatives, or NeoCons, is RadCons to further illustrate their radical point of view):

Not the least, the rise of the Radcons has in fact corresponded with the widening drift of workers across America into two different worlds--one rich, the other economically anxious. Consider: The after-tax income of teh top one percent of American earners has more than doubled since 1990, while the after-tax income of families in the middle has grown only slightly. The riches one percent of Americans now have almost two-fifths of the nation's wealth. That's more than the combined wealth of the bottom 95 percent. The wages and benefits of America's blue-collar and low-level white-coallar workers stopped rising in the late 1970s, and have barely budged since then. White men without four-year college degrees have actually experienced a decline in their pay. Meanwhile, the costs of staples of the middle class--education, health care, housing, and medicine--have risen faster than median family incomes.

O'Really seems to have bought into Radcon view of economics:

In this view, it's perfectly appropriate that the poor should get less money and the rich more because the poor have no inherent virtue. The money the received came as welfare checks, not paychecks. The rich have great virtue. Their money came (at least originally) from satisfying others through the market. If it's thereafter handed down through their families in perpetuity, that's a just reward for original virtue.

It's interesting how a man who claims to have risen up from humble means (see Al Franken's book for a debunking of this myth) has now become interested in distribution of wealth through inheritance.

Anyhoo, O'Really ends up with his real mission--to out a liberal:

Again, I don't have any trouble with Springsteen campaigning for anybody or raising money for a political candidate. I actually applaud his interest. But don't be telling me you're not a partisan and don't be suggesting the government divide up anybody's wealth while sitting there in the Beverly Hills. You may have been born in the USA, Bruce, but I wasn't born yesterday.

In the show's following segment, he interviewed Anthony DeCurtis of Rolling Stone to get him to admit that Springsteen is a liberal, and not a non-partisan. What is the deal with this McCarthy-esque witch hunt by right-wing media mongers to get people to use the "L" word?

Ugh. I've once again sputtered out in rage and have barely little coherent left to say. Just take a look at the lyrics to Bruce's Mansion on the Hill (from the Nebraska album) to get a sense of where Bruce (and his damn socialist agenda) comes from.