truman. Please stop with the Marie Antoinette “quote.” There is no evidence that she ever said anything remotely resembling the quote. There is, however, much evidence that people who hated her (many of whom were in the French aristocracy and French intellectual elites) attributed the quote to her, mainly to show how “out of touch” she was with French society, especially the lower classes (of course, the nobility accusing her of such attitude weren’t all that “in touch” with the lower classes themselves but that kind of ruins a good story).

As the tale goes, Marie is made aware of a group of French peasants protesting and she asks why. She’s told they’re protesting because they have no bread to eat and she supposedly utters the “Well, let them eat cake, then” line—not to mock them but merely because she’s apparently so stupid she doesn’t know that one needs flour to make cake. (Technically, the traditional French quote has her using “brioche” not “gâteau”—a brioche is basically a type of bread, enriched with butter and eggs and “gâteau” is the usual French word for “cake.” It’s a very subtle difference since, at the time, butter and eggs could be even more costly for those who didn’t live on a farm.) Additionally, the line is actually derived from Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s “Confessions” (the first part which had been written in the late 1760s—though not published till 1782—when Marie would’ve been about 13, and, somewhat ironically, her popularity among the French people only began to decline about the time that Rousseau’s “Confessions” was published) in which he recounts a story of a “thoughtless princess” who utters the line; notably, he’s recounting this story while explaining why HE couldn’t go into a bakery as a young man (it’d be sort of like explaining why you felt compelled to vote because of a story you’d heard about some election in which one vote was the deciding factor—even if the story itself was completely false). Rousseau was in his 50s when he wrote the narrative about something he recalled as a 20-something young man.

The first actual direct attribution of the line to Marie was by Jean-Baptiste Alphonse Karr some 50 YEARS after her execution in one of his “Guêpes” (a series of essays that were frequently satirical). However, most of the surviving letters written by Marie have an entirely sympathetic tone when dealing with the poor. And, one should never discount the fact that, as the French Revolution was beginning, France was becoming highly xenophobic and highly nationalistic, in addition to its anti-aristocratic and anti-monarchial tone, and Marie was from Austria so she had two very big black marks against her (which help with the confluence of Marie with the infamous line).

Effectively, this thing with Marie is no more real than the stories of Washington chopping down the cherry tree or the reality of “the midnight ride of Paul Revere” or Betsy Ross’s first flag. It makes for a good story but is pure hokum.

Yeah, Wayne, but that’s not enough for the FoxNoise “holy warriors” (or, as they’d be known in another religious tradition, “jihahdists”).

Of course, when O’Reilly spends as much time defending “Easter” from the secularists, I’ll give his “War on Christmas” meme the attention it deserves. (After all, in the Christian tradition, Easter is the most important holiday. Christmas is really a secondary holiday in which the majority of the “traditions” are completely pagan-based.)

To the letterwriter who “would like to see a debate between the Judge and Hillary”: Let’s just say that if it were on FoxNoise, it would NOT be a fair debate. Hillary would get 30 seconds; the “Judge” would get 5 minutes. (Of course, that’s “fair and balanced” per FoxNoise standards.)

And if the debate were held anywhere else, you’d NEVER hear about the outcome on FoxNoise because the “Judge” would get her ass handed to her on a silver platter. The topic would NEVER be brought up by anyone at FoxNoise and, if by chance, it did come up, the spin would be phenomenal (akin to witnessing Halley’s Comet twice in one’s lifetime). There would be so many accusations that “Hillary bought the media” or “the liberal media didn’t play fair” (basically, a non-FoxNoise station/network would be accused of doing everything that FoxNoise would do for the “Judge”—but never fess up to—if it were the host of the debate).

And, let’s not forget that the one time the “Judge” planned to go up against Hillary (running in 2006 for the GOP nomination for Hillary’s Senate seat), she ended her campaign after a mere two months. She hadn’t even made it to the GOP primary race before dropping out. (Sure, she made a run for NY Attorney General, but ended up getting beaten by Andrew Cuomo by 21 percentage points. Allegedly, one of the factors that led to her dropping out of the Senate race was that polls indicated she’d lose to Clinton by a 2 to 1 margin; she didn’t really fare much better in the AG race.)

And now would be a good time for the Vatican to have one of ITS spokesmen to visit FoxNoise and provide the official Vatican view (which is, “Hey, the new place meets our requirement—it’s all cool”) and tell the FoxLiars that the next time the network wants to act offended on behalf of Catholics, it speak to Catholics who have a stake in the matter.

Oh, and someone should remind the FoxLiars that the Embassy is part of the Vatican’s WORLDLY concerns and how the Vatican interacts with the SECULAR side of the world. Unless Pres Obama makes a move to shut down actual Catholic churches anywhere, the Embassy does NOT constitute a “slight” to Catholics. (In fact, if anything, having an Embassy and dealing with the Vatican in a political manner is a slap in the face of American Protestants, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Wiccans, etc—none of which have an American Embassy to be moved anywhere.)

I wonder if it’s possible to show the Pope how the people entrusted to deliver his message to Americans so regularly appear on FoxNoise supporting just the opposite?

Maybe it’s time that the Pope issues a directive prohibiting ordained clergy from appearing on networks (or at least “news” programs) which do not promote a completely objective viewpoint, with clergy who do make more than one appearance (on any topic that does not explicitly deal with purely religious issues) being threatened with a formal censure and repeated violations being met with excommunication. AND, perhaps most importantly, the Pope should direct that Catholics could not purport to represent the Church’s stance on subjects without having been pre-approved to do so (I’m looking at Bill Donohue in particular on this).

Just thought. Just to make it truly interesting, have the National Anthem as performed by Jose Feliciano, Jimi Hendrix and Marvin Gaye playing outside the FoxFiends’ houses.

Van Suckup squealed: At Fux Noise, we don’t merely report the news. We make shit up, as a Florida Court of Appeals ruled we could.

There, truman, fixed it for you.

sandman, I suspect truman wrote exactly what he meant. Of course, in the real world of FoxNoise, your comment is the far more likely outcome.

(I’m sure you understood the sarcasm truman meant but—just in case—I’m sure that truman was expecting Ailes to treat Kelly with the same expectation of journalistic integrity that Dan Rather received from CBS. Of course, at FoxNoise, there’s no such thing as “journalistic integrity.” They’ve got a license to lie.)

Well, the couple ought to kick those lazy sons out of the house for starters. What kind of right-wing site would willingly (or knowingly) choose a couple with grown sons still living at home with mommy and daddy to be their example of an “Obamacare victim?”

Even more to the point is why the hell isn’t Kay out there working, bringing in some income? It’s not like, with a 19- and 21-year old son living at home, she needs to be a “stay-at-home” mom.

And I’m kind of curious as to how much the husband’s “retirement salary” is if they don’t qualify for any subsidies? Most people living off some type of retirement income aren’t really doing that well.

I think there’s a whole lot more to this story than is being told from either Heritage or the Kelly File (13).

I was reading about this (not the FoxNoise take, but the general GOP take) on the Daily Banter and I made a comment suggesting that Obama should announce his intentions of bombing Tehran and see how quickly the GOPers denounce that (even as they’ve been calling for it for the last decade). A little good news reporting showing the GOPers’ “sudden” change of attitude could show the country (except the FoxNoise audience of braindead mouthbreathers) might be what’s needed to finally show what the GOP’s real problem is—not the Democratic Party, not even a Democratic President, just a BLACK Democratic President.

Yep, nothing explains the notion of “freedom” like being coerced into reciting a meaningless “oath.”

I just wish someone would remind the good Foxers that the Pledge was written by a REAL Socialist. (You think that might change the network’s support for the Pledge?)

Well, it is true that Oswald WAS a Communist but (as Paul Harvey would say) now, for the rest of the story…..

Mr Oswald “defected” to the Soviet Union and intended to renounce his US citizenship in October 1959 (after having served in the US Marines for almost two years—in fact, his status as a Marine was one of what he’d hoped to use as a “selling point” in his “defection”; incidentally, he never did formally renounce his citizenship). Interestingly enough, there’s NO actual proof that Oswald was, in fact, a “card-carrying” Communist; when he entered the Soviet Union, he said he was a Communist but, after 50 years, there’s no physical evidence that he actually belonged to any Communist (or even Socialist) Party—it would’ve been rather difficult for him to have been at the time since he joined the Marines (McCarthyism may have been gone but you simply could NOT join the US military if you’d displayed anything more than an intellectual curiosity about Communism). However, less than 3 years later—in June of 1962—he returned to the US, largely because he’d become DISENCHANTED with life in the Soviet Union. He’d been assigned some fairly mundane factory work (but he did get some perks for his “defector” status) in the city of Minsk (now the capital of Belarus) but he grew very bored. He contacted the US Embassy to have his US passport returned and, after marrying Marina, managed to get the paperwork to bring her (and their child) to the US. While living in Dallas, the Oswalds became friendly with the (anti-Communist) Russian emigre community—though the community was more friendly with Marina. Also, it’s a bit notable that during official police investigation after the assassination, Oswald denied being a Communist, stating that he was a Marxist.

Still in all, regardless of Oswald’s politics, there’s NO denying that forerunners of today’s Teabaggers (most notably, the John Birch Society) placed ads in the Dallas papers calling for Kennedy’s arrest as a traitor and we ALL know how little it takes for right-wingers to go over the edge.

Mark, you’re being far too willing to give the benefit of the doubt.

Just look at the screen cap of the footage at the top of the story. The chyron (that’s the writing at the bottom of the screen) reads

DON’T BREAK THE BANK!
CREATE A SPENDING PLAN THIS HOLIDAY SEASON.

Now, most of us don’t really have “spending” problems involving the Thanksgiving holiday. No, it starts with “Black Friday” sales for the Christmas holiday. Sure, some of us may go a bit overboard buying food for the Day of Remembering How Immigration Policy for This Country Has Always Been Truly Fucked Up BUT it’s not like we usually spend more than about $20-$25 per person for that turkey dinner. Compare that to how much people spend at the Black Friday sales per person.

Gooch, for you to have even started reading the post with that thought suggests that you’ve allowed yourself to succumb to a way of thinking that presumes humanist organizations would be spiteful just for the sake of being spiteful.

And considering the fact the article includes “Franklin Graham Charity” in the title should have raised an IMMEDIATE warning flag to you that there wasn’t going to be a purely humanitarian mission in mind. Franklin Graham is the most noxious piece of scum operating as a servant of Christ. (I’d love to be there on “Judgment Day” to see the look on Graham’s face when Jesus himself kicks old Frankie-poo down to the fiery pits for failing to live His teachings, instead of shystering His teachings.)

From Antoinette’s comment: “Feel the whip on her back from her angry massa after finding a book in her possession;. . . .”

Antoinette, while I understand what you’re trying to put across, do you really think that Slave Sarah would be any more likely to have a book in her possession than Real Sarah? (I’m not sure if it’s wrong, but I kind of think—perhaps with a bit of wistfulness—that Slave Sarah would be the rest of the slaves’ scapegoat. If massa did find a book in her possession, odds are that one of the other slaves would’ve planted it there.)

What Toddler should realize is that there are only TWO reasons why you find Bibles in the “non-fiction” section of libraries: First, they fall under “Religion” (which falls under the 200 category of non-fiction in the Dewey Decimal System; it should be remembered, however, that the 800 category is Literature and includes MANY works of fiction including poetry and plays); and second, they qualify as reference works (most libraries’ reference sections exclude regular fiction such as mass-market works like the works of Stephen King and J K Rowling except where done as essays by professional critics).

There is absolutely NOTHING about the Bible that would merit its inclusion as NON-fiction if you look at it from an objective point of view. Even L Ron Hubbard’s Dianetics is classified as “non-fiction” under the Dewey Decimal System and, as the “Bible” for Scientology, it’s pretty much nothing more than outright science fiction. (It’s kind of interesting that so many right-wingers laud Ayn Rand’s various works of fiction as though they should be treated with half the respect they expect be given to the Bible.)

You know. I would just LOVE Oprah to go on TV somewhere and say, “To all my many fans, I have a challenge for you today. It’s far more political than I usually do—and it might not be quite as easy as reading one of my book club recommendations but here it is. I’ve got a list of sponsors of FoxNews and Rush Limbaugh who have lately been criticizing me for comments I made and then, on top of that, they’ve been selectively taking the comments out of context. What I would ask you to do is look at the sponsors and the products they sell and contact these people and let them know what YOU think of their sponsoring programs and individuals who are PROVEN liars. Tell them what action YOU think they should be taking against these people, whether it’s merely a reduction in the amount of airtime they sponsor or a complete removal of their sponsorship, and what actions YOU would be willing to take if these companies don’t listen to you, their consumers.”

Oprah may not be quite as popular as she once was but this is a woman who managed to take on the meat industry and won (and she was just becoming a major star at that time). I’ve got a feeling she’s got enough influence to get some of these FoxNoise sponsors to put the heat on old Rupert and Roger.

I doubt this will happen but FoxNoise should know better than to test Oprah Winfrey.

@ Visitor: Now, now. Here in the South we have an even nicer way of calling someone stupid: “Bless his heart.” (I must confess though, most times, it’s just easier to be brutally honest.)

Oh, and it’s always classy to interview people who knew the subject in one segment, and then later have a bunch of people who have nothing to do except rewrite history completely ignore the previous people’s knowledge.

Will might also want to remember that Oswald was a Marine and that, as noted in my previous comment, there were plenty of conservative Americans who entertained the idea of a dead JFK (with more than a little glee). And it’s interesting that despite all the right-wing anti-Kennedy paraphernalia floating around in the days prior to Kennedy’s assassination, the official report focused almost exclusively on Oswald’s “Communist/Cuban” connection.

Also, I meant to note that, as a (lapsed) Methodist (I really have no use for any sort of religion), my ministers always pointed out that church was more about “sharing with like-minded others” but that, if you accepted God and Jesus, you didn’t really need church. Your “status” as a “good Christian” never relied on church attendance IF you made certain to set aside some time in prayer/meditation or just basically “time for God” on at least a weekly basis. Church was largely little more than a way to do this in an “organized” fashion.

Of course, living in the South, I also remember seeing a number of grown men in the congregation glancing at their watches during the Sunday sermon—especially during football season—to make sure they were going to be able to make it home in time for whatever kick-off they were looking forward to. Just because your body was sitting in a church pew didn’t mean your mind or spirit was there performing the function either of them was supposed to do. I also remember a number of men who you’d see going to Sunday School, but were never in a church pew listening to the minister—at least not until football season was over for the year (including the Super Bowl—since the Super Bowl was typically broadcast during the Eastern and Central time zones early-to-midafternoon until the 90s).