One of the biggest egos in an anchor’s chair at Fox New—she lives for the sound of her own voice—is Laura Ingraham. She generally monologues over her guests at length, and then informs them, “Hurry; you have 30 seconds to say your piece.” (a WND reader is on to her.) Although we’re living in grim times—the demented grin never leaves the face of zero-information Ingraham.
Almost as bad as Ingraham is Fox’s Jesse Watters. He absolutely blankets a guest’s input with his own self-important bloviation. The saving grace of Watters is that he is rather amusing.
Another strike, however, against Watters is that he was made BIG by Bill O’Reilly. O’Reilly kindly introduced Watters to viewers of “The Factor.” The younger man, however, has never publicly given O’Reilly credit, not least during the 25th anniversary celebrations of the network.
Watters, moreover, is not telling the truth when he says “The Five” was his first big gig on Fox News, as claimed. O’Reilly gave him a gig. Any gig on “The Factor” was big, because “The Factor” was huge. This makes Watters an ingrate.
UPDATED (11/16/021): Laura Ingraham can’t imagine or comprehend that a Netflix show called “You” is not about her.
This is a great clip of The Ego and Idiocy of Ms. Ingraham.
Actually Raimond Arroyo is the only person loud-mouth Laura ever lets talk without interruption.
Hard Truth examines the wishy-washy work of anti-Trump, pro-censorship softie Douglas Murray, darling of Conservatism Inc, and finds there is not much there. Little Lord Fauntleroy is intellectually naked.
Murray has his fan boys. They refuse to address our substantive arguments, but, rather, engage in ad hominen (psychologizing about our motivation is a form of ad hominem). It used to be that critics (like David and I) were free to engage in critique. Now, if one does it, fan boys complain. Refute our arguments, don’t complain about them.
UPDATE II (8/13): Check out the noisy letter exchanges for this YouTube. My replies:
In reply to more ad hominem, jealousy:
How do you explain, then, the praise David and I offered for Mark Steyn who, unlike Murray, is intellectually substantial. Why not address our substantive arguments, rather than engage in ad hominen (psychologizing about our motivation is a form of ad hominem). It used to be that critics engaged in critique. Now if one does it, fan boys complain. Refute our arguments, don’t complain about them.
To the “Murray is fighting our fight” nonsense:
On my side of the pond, Katie Hopkins and Trump are considered hardcore, effective conservatives. Tellingly, Douglas Murray HATES THEM. He says so! If anything, he’s an ineffectual effete who waters down The Struggle. How does that help us? (He’s a neoconservative; wrote a book about how great that philosophical blight is.) David and myself have done a public service. But nobody likes hard truth; people prefer being fans of the latest popular TV ponce.
To the, “Oh, you just don’t like the lovely boy” argument:
Wrong. Murray’s actions and empty words are what cause disdain. Our arguments were clear. Clear examples were read out from Murray’s own text. Address those. He intimates, for example, that he’s happy that highly effective conservatives have been banned (N. Fuentes and K. Hopkins). He never once shows, moreover, a feel for unfettered free speech. On my side of the pond, you are no conservative without that understanding. In a post I penned about him, Murray fortifies his lack of strong opposition to Tech censorship by saying NOT that he abhors Big Tech’s tyranny, but, to quote his vague dissembling, “Big Tech are not up to the task.” The premise of that idiotic quip is that there is a censor out there that IS UP TO THE TASK. Wrong. I’m debating with you in good faith. rise to that challenge and do the same.
UPDATE II (10/11/021):
Dissidents had been fighting authoritarianism when Douglas Murray was still in short pants. Wishy-washy and anti-Trump, Murray, who penned a book FOR Neoconservatism and has been establishment Con. Inc. forever, had, on October 8, condemned the Alt Right on Tucker Carlson Tonight.
He’s an intellectual lightweight who makes Douglas Murray—another philosophically breezy fellow—sound like Russell Kirk. But Ben Shapiro is taken seriously by the conservative establishment, primarily because he emits banalities really, really fast. That’s all there is to it.
The patina of smart in Murray’s case is posh English and fabulous oratory. However, you can wait until the cows come home for either to zero in on a foundational problem (like anti-whiteness) or disgorge an original thought. That isn’t happening.
And, anti-Trumper Ben-Shapiro wants January 6 rioters to rot in hell. In the company of Bill Maher, the liberal host of an HBO show, “Real Time,” and a fan of Ben-Shap, the little rudderless rotter felt empowered to offer that:
“There were maybe 1,000 people. That is not making light of the evil of those people, who all will end up rotting in prison, as they should.”
Rather than raise awareness for how Capitol protesters are being tortured, beaten, racially abused and locked in solitary confinement, Ben Shapiro chose to denounce them as “evil,” and declare they should “all” rot in prison for as little as trespassing. … How could anyone not realize this bought-and-paid-for shill is controlled opposition?
Apparently Ben-Shap is trained in the law. If you were choosing a lawyer, would you choose a statist who has no feel for due process? Due process of the law is certainly being flouted for the Jan 6 political prisoners.
You might want to apprise yourself of the fact that Candace Owens, a similar sort of fast-talking production sans gravitas, broadcasts from the Daily Caller, Ben-Shap’s site.
On video: The Controlled Opposition: Candace On Tucker Is WRONG About The Riot and Rut Crowd: David Vance and Ilana Mercer discuss what causes the savage violence affecting some American cities. Ilana disputes the analysis provided by Candace Owens on Fox News. I explore this with her.
Wow. I since have found out that Candace goes scorched earth on some very decent people, and shames a shapely sister, Kim Klacik, for working as a stripper to make ends meet. Not nice.
