Liberationizing
the World

Hang on to your seats, folks!

If you're fed up with the hypocrisy of the world's most biased news network then this site will make you smile. I hope you find all this as laughable as the Fox News (sic) Channel itself.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Aren't you worried about lawsuits, about copyright infringement?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Nope.

• I'm not misquoting anyone,
• I'm not plagiarizing anyone,

and
• this is obvious (i.e., poor) parody (despite the stupidity of FOX, parody is usually recognizable, and the parody here is clumsier than most)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pretend it's McCain

If John McCain were the President, how would he justify invading Iraq?

"During the Cold War our defensive posture against the Soviet Union was one of Mutually Assured Destruction, and the USSR held to that same philosophy regarding us. For decades the world's two superpowers competed in a Cold War but by the grace of God, not in a Nuclear War.


"In 1987 Ronald Reagan, recognizing the signs of a desperate Soviet Union, and taking advantage of the moment, snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. I'm speaking, of course, of that momentous speech Mr. Reagan gave in 1987, in front of Berlin's Brandeburg Gate. With his words President Reagan accelerated the collapse of the Soviet Union -- and ultimately communism:

"Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!"

"Although the Cold War was not specifically engineered as a "wait and see" endeavor, it eventually became as much. In retrospect, the Cold War was genuinely a peaceful solution to an ominous predicament.


"However, we can not find an equal approach with regards to terrorism. As foul as Communism and all its expressions were, terrorism is a much seedier and more devious mindset, and as far as I know, there is no humane manner in which we can safely square off in philosophical and strategic terms with the likes of terrorist groups.


"Now, I realize the direct connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden is a fuzzy one, and so I won't try to redirect your focus to any fuzzy tangents with which some people might presume to link these two men. Let us dispense with that pretense: I'm not going to stand here and tell you there is something to the relationship between these two men sufficiently urgent to warrant sending our nation's fighting men and women into harm's way.


"On the other hand, no meaningful and productive contemplation of Saddam Hussein can ignore the reality of those well-documented atrocities which he has perpetrated toward others, not the least harrowing of which are those acts he has carried out against his own people. There can be no doubt that Saddam Hussein is an evil man.


"Furthermore, it goes without saying that the Middle East is a major source of anti-American sentiment. The recent terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 showed the world that our nation is not as invulnerable as many previously thought. It follows, then, that any anti-American regime who witnessed the atrocities of 911 immediately reconsidered his national strategy. There are simply the matters of time and logistics, I'm convinced, before Hussein permanently alters his strategy toward a more proactive anti-American terrorism-basis.


"Therefore, I submit to you all, that we must move in and remove this man from Iraq. . ."

Somehow that actually made me feel better.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"No News Like Faux News!"

Letterman's Down, Leno's Next! (Hollywood Denver). . . .Ratings for Robert Blake's new FOX show, Screaming Legals are skyrocketing! Despite rumors that FOX has hired him for his shock value, we feel that Blake has a unique and valuable, marketable,unique perspective to offer the world. After all, he's been in jail - unlike anyone else here at Faux News - and he's seen up Barbara Walter's nostrils - also unlike anyone else here at Faux News. --Blaine Steinert--

Find ANY word Find ALL words  Find EXACT phrase    Help

The Fox Box

For one reason or another, popular songs are typically short, immediately memorable, and easily digested. These concepts are pop music; while other factors -- like lyrical content, and the artist's notoriety and sex appeal -- go a long way in determining an artist's success, they aren't the core elements of the pop music paradigm. You're probably not going to hear a whole lot of 12 minute, 5/8-time, Ralph Shapey-esque songs on "K-POP" just because Cristina Aguilera or Ludacris is singing them. For better or worse simplicity, catchiness, brevity, and predictability define pop music.

I think that popularity and homogeny go hand-in-hand, but the bland pop musicform to which I refer really took hold when electronic media came of age in the late 50s/early 60s; i.e., when radio and TV became nationally-accessible. Unfortunately for the musicians in the audience, the first days were the simplest days. And although every year since has seen an increase in lucrative genres, the most popular of popular music continues to be the blandest.

Like it or not, political debate seems to be going the same way popular music did in the 1950s and 60s. Instead of political debate featuring the thoughtful exchange of ideas, certain radio bands and cable TV channels are now specializing in three minute, easily digested and neatly wrapped "affirmations," confirmations based in the opinion that change is not a part of reality, but rather an alien force. Who better to soothe these fears than some really popular political "thinkers" who are steadfastly wiping away these changes with each and every "The Way Things Ought to (Remain)"?

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"We put the BS in BIAS"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

No, excursions into the orthodoxy of accidentals in African music is not what Mabel from Nebraska wants to hear. Phil from Ohio isn't much interested in weird time signatures or staccato interpretations of Vivaldi. These people want "Shake it up, Baby," even if this time around it's called "La Bamba."

And Fox knows it. There is no breeding ground for today's political Monkees more fertile than that at Fox. Not that there's anything wrong with the Monkees. It's just that I can't recall observing Mickey Dolenz or Peter Tork having a whole lot of influence over President Nixon's staff (actually, when you think about it, we might have gotten out of Vietnam a lot sooner if this were the case).

Anyway, I consider myself a decent "philosophicator" and so - just as a decent musician trying to explain his opinions might point out that AC/DC uses a grand total of six chords, or that Willie Nelson only writes in two keys - I'm going to identify the entire tool box with which Fox News pundits "craft" their "debate." (This is an evolving work, so it will likely change between now and May 1. Any input is welcome)

Some of the tools will look familiar to those with experience in official debate (begging the question, the ad hominem attack, etc.), but have been simplified in accordance with the subjects they describe.

1. The Untraceable Trace - "How do you know Christopher Columbus discovered America? Do you remember the name of the book where you saw this?"



2. Rubberglue - A.K.A. circular reasoning. E.g., Sean Hannity - in all seriousness - trying to substantiate his point that Tom Daschle's criticism of George Bush was "outrageous," appealing to Newt Gingrich: "Yeah, but what about the fact that it's just simply outrageous?" Sorry guys, but making the premise equal the conclusion just ain't "intellectually honest."



3. The Redirect - Used to get past some debatable claim ("I've been to the Moon, twice, but LOOK - let's get back to the point..."). Also used for a moment where the liberal has, or is on the verge of "scoring a point."



4. The Factpinion - "So-and-so stated it," is a fact; "what so-and-so stated" is not (unless your name is Bill O'Reilly).



5. Quali-no-Quanti - Qualifying without quantifying. "Your argument is specious," then neglecting to explain how the argument is "specious."



6. Ignor'Bliss - "Don't know, don't care!" The sarcastic "Yeah, okay!" ; "Whatever" ; etc. Best when accompanied by an eye-roll or annoyed-sounding sigh.



7. Thinking in Blocks - Generalizing, stereotyping.



8. The Pep Rally - Repetitive, space-filling, "morale boosting" coach-speak. E.g., "The NEW YORK TIMES, the L.A. TIMES, U.S.A. TODAY", patterned in a rabble-rousing chant: "da DAH DAH DAH, da DAH DAH DAH, da DAH DAH DAH..." etc.



9. The Pseudo'cession - The pseudo-concession; focuses more on the magnanimous gesture of the concession, while ignoring the original act/error. "I was incorrect, but now I'm setting things straight! That's the kind of man I am. I admit my mistakes."



10. Phony Authority - Twisting a normally valid tool into a lie, as with imaginary or exaggerated statistics, such as the time O'Reilly said, "37% of Florida college students are black!" In reality, 37% of Florida college students are minorities, half of which are black, but that didn't fit his argument too well.