Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Why does Fox News Hate Babies?

By

Former masturbation instructor and loofah enthusiast Bill O’Reilly confirmed yesterday that two infants were separated from their mothers and hospitalized with dehydration following the botched New Bedford immigration raid. O’Reilly then blamed the mothers for the condition of the babies, who were also diagnosed with pneumonia. “[P]neumonia, which most likely led to the dehydration,” he reported. The former weatherman concluded with a plaintive request that the New York Times revise its editorial yesterday that castigated the fiasco.

The fiction that Fox News is a credible operation is harder to sustain with each day. The Nevada Democrats were correct to refuse to debate with them as a host. The closest analog I can find to Fox is the People’s Weekly World.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

  1. Fox rocks baby that is why they beat CNN in ratings

    <

    p>
    smile I know I am

  3. Not to endorse or demonize Fox, but I don’t think your synopsis summarizes what O’Reilly said in the article:

    <

    p>

    Two babies were admitted to two New Bedford area hospitals shortly after the raid. A 7-month-old was taken to St. Vincent’s where it was diagnosed with pneumonia and dehydration. And another baby was admitted to St. Luke’s, also with pneumonia and dehydration. Both babies were accompanied by guardians and both were treated. If there’s another baby in play, we can’t find it.

    Of course, the immigration raid didn’t cause the pneumonia, which most likely led to the dehydration. So the description used by The New York Times to demonize the Department of Homeland Security seems to be false.

    <

    p>
    I don’t see, at least not the referenced article, that O’Reilly blamed the mothers. 

    <

    p>
    And, me no medical guy, but think about it: there’s raid, mom’s detained, baby at baby sitters.  It’s 7:00 a.m. and babysitter says kid won’t eat, we’re heading to ER.  The video says the baby had a 104.5 temperature. Video of sitter sticking bottle in kid’s mouth and kid knocking it aside.  Yeah, I’m sceptical.

    <

    p>
    Fog of war. 

    <

    p>
    O’Reilly looked for verification.  Aledgedly found none.

    <

    p>
    Next we read that O’Reilly allegedly finds no substantiation that either of those admitted babies belonged to detained/deported mothers.

    <

    p>
    I’m no apologist for O’Reilly, INS, or ICE or any government agency.  They annoy the crap outta me. Ever try to call INS?  Good luck. Phone hell.  But Fox journalist integrity and ICE/INS competence notwithstanding, there’s at least some probability that our beloved Pols are using kids as cheap crying props.

    <

    p>
    Were the assertions from the Kennedy post video accurate?  Fair question.  O’Reilly answered.  Rebuttal anyone? 

    <

    p>
    What’s that saying? Trust everyone, but cut the cards.

    <

    p>
    There’s at least some probability that the “humanitarian crisis” was exaggerated.  To me “humanitarian crisis” is Iraq, Darfur.  New Bedford? Show me the money. 

    <

    p>
    Yeah, it sucks to be an illegal worker detainees. Gov. Patrick:  “It’s a humanitarian crisis and it’s ongoing.” Please Governor.  Grow a friggin’ spine, cross the aisle and come out for substantive Guest Worker Visa reform, aka Bush Policy.

    <

    p>
    Don’t like that one, Governor? Ok, then blame the employers. Propose a statute that makes hiring an illegal a felony.  Strict liability.  You hire ’em, you go to jail. 

    <

    p>
    Then you’ll see a humanitarian crisis in the form of every illegal in the state out of a job and looking for food.

    <

    p>
    But nope.  No solutions from our leaders. It’s all about the children.

    <

    p>
    The breastpounding from Kennedy, Patrick, the Globe, every last one of them is disgusting. Each simply ignores the problem and lards out 1 minute sound bites empathy. When facing insurrmountable political problems, kiss a baby, think of the children, hold a rally, light a candle. Disgusting.

    <

    p>
    Then, someone as polarizing as O’Reilly checks the facts and you ask why does Fox hate babies.

    • on the same page regarding immigration reform, once upon a time?  For me, immigration was one of those “stopped clock” moments where Bush more or less had it right, and was being pilloried by the right wing of his party for it.  What happened?

      <

      p>
      On a related note, Mitt Romney’s amazing flip-flopping continues on the immigration issue.  He was for McCain’s compromise before he was against it. 

      • Bush policy is still guest visa without track to citizenship.

        <

        p>
        Kennedy/McCain included guest visa but with citizenship track. Other than that, Bush/Kennedy/McCain are in line, but since the election I haven’t heard much from Kennedy on immigration reform other than “we need it”. The “no amnesty” crowd on the right refused to budge and DOAed Kennedy/McCain.

        <

        p>
        And here we are. 

        <

        p>
        Save the children, a policy with TV appeal.

        • Save the children, a policy with TV appeal

          <

          p>
          On the flip side:  Arrest the criminals!  A policy that plays well to the CSI crowd.

          <

          p>
          And I endorse both policies, by the way.  Saving children, and arresting criminals.  The debate on immigration is just so much more nuanced.

          <

          p>
          The discussion I want to hear (but haven’t really heard yet):  How can we turn our immigration problem into an advantage?  Jeff Jacoby had it right (for once) earlier this week: Are our quota regulations WOEFULLY behind the time?  Can we afford to take in more immigrants legally?  After all, we’re already taking them in – it’s just that they’re here illegally.

          <

          p>
          How do we get turn illegal immigrants into productive legal immigrants?  It has less to do with the character of the immigrant than it does the nature of the INS regulation, I think.

    • our beloved Pols are using kids as cheap crying props”

      <

      p>
      The pols are not the only people using “kids as cheap crying props”

      <

      p>
      Take a look at Charley’s post titled “MIRA Coalition helping New Bedford kiddos” http://www.bluemassg…

      <

      p>
      and if you scroll down a little we got a great shot at a grown man crying because well . . . let’s just say some little kid somewhere in New Bedford is going to find out that their parent or parent(s) broke the law like so many low life scum you see on “COPS”

      <

      p>
      Sorry kid . . . mom and/or dad is a lowlife scum who has no respect for our immigration laws.  That is why we had to bust them.  And bust them we did….even in the Blue Heaven that is Mass there is always room for the good ol’ fashion “takedown.”

      <

      p>
      TAKEDOWN!

      <

      p>
      YEAH

      <

      p>
      TAKEDOWN!

      <

      p>

      • -McCain/Kennedy: guest visas but with citizenship track. I think the McCain/Kennedy plan has broad Democratic support.

        <

        p>
        -You have the Bush Policy: guest visas but not citizenship track.

        <

        p>
        -Pat Buchanan:  They’re criminals. Deport them.

        <

        p>
        -Pelosi plan, which is: anything but the Bush plan.

        <

        p>
        The Massachusetts plan: give them licenses, tuition subsidized, but damn well don’t let them work. A let them drive, learn but not eat policy.

        <

        p>
        Seems the Bush plan really is the better compromise IMHO. Why not? Adopt the Bush policy and if you want amnesty later, then go for amnesty later.  What harm?  For sure, if the Bush plan were law, there’d have been no raid in New Bedford.

        • …for two reasons.

          <

          p>
          One, regarding allowing an alien who is physically in the state to work is not something the Massachusetts state government can determine.  That is controlled by the federal government.

          <

          p>
          Two, an alien who is physically in the state will probably drive, regardless of whether he or she has a license.  I would prefer that the state at least offer the availability of licensing to any alien, legal or not.  The reason being that passing a driving test shows at least a minimal competence at driving and knowledge of the rules of the road.

          <

          p>
          Regarding your touting of the Bush plan, I’ll merely point out that that was essentially the same as the Gastarbeiter (guest worker) plan in Germany since WWII.  The fact that the Gastarbeiter, primarily Turks, were not offered a citizenship track (their descendants born in Germany were not German citizens, either–they had no equivalent of the 14th amendment’s “all persons born in the US are US citizens”) was roundly criticized by the Wall Street Journal’s wingnut idiotorial page in the mid 1990s.  So the Bush plan would run contrary to the WSJ’s “thinking” in the mid 1990s.  Interesting.

Archives