By Selwyn Duke
So I was watching the O'Reilly Factor last night, and the pugnacious pundit had as a guest the always entertaining Ann Coulter. Now, Coulter is usually a bit more on the mark than O'Reilly, who often doesn't perceive the Truth until a building falls on him (several years ago, when he was already in his 50s, he finally acknowledge that, golly gee, there is a liberal bias in the lamestream media). Yet last night it seemed they both had their heads firmly planted in the sand.
What happened was that O'Reilly mentioned White House Communications Director Anita Dunn, the woman who thinks that Chairman Mao is just lip-lickin' good. Well, Coulter must have had a blonde moment. She brushed off Dunn's affinity for murderous Mao by saying that she wouldn't make a big deal out of it because, well, she's quoted Mao also. And O'Reilly seemed to agree that it wasn't a big deal.
Hello? I feel like I'm gazing through the looking glass. Hey, Ann, Bill, did you ever call Mao one of your "two favorite philosophers"? Did you, bubbling with enthusiasm, say that he was someone to whom you always looked?
Really, though, maybe I'm just not as swift as O'Reilly and Coulter. I mean, I was under this crazy impression that if you call someone a favorite philosopher, you agree with his philosophy; that if you look to him, you're looking for those things we call guidance, inspiration and wisdom. But now I see that's not the case. You can regard someone as a favorite philosopher while believing he was completely wrong, thoroughly idiotic and profoundly evil. Maybe you just like his shoes.
Sometimes I wonder how people breathe under all that sand.
© 2009 Selwyn Duke — All Rights Reserved


Let us know what you think, dear reader. We value your input!