Fox Nation’s Acrobatic Smear Fest: A Triple Putz

Posted by on March 2, 2012 at 3:39 pm. 4 Comments :

Sometimes, in the right-wing noise machine, you really need to stretch to spread your smears across as many targets as possible. It calls for a strategy that aims to cast your juvenile insults so broadly that they ensnare any of your perceived enemies within a certain proximity. In a way, it’s a conservative approach that allows you to use less tar to tarnish more opponents in one wide swipe.

To that end, the Fox Nationalists went after Matt Taibbi of the Rolling Stone for his remembrances of Andrew Breitbart. Taibbi took a particularly Breitbartian tone in saying…

“So Andrew Breitbart is dead. Here’s what I have to say to that, and I’m sure Breitbart himself would have respected this reaction: Good! Fuck him. I couldn’t be happier that he’s dead.

I say this in the nicest possible way. I actually kind of liked Andrew Breitbart. Not in the sense that I would ever have wanted to hang out with him, or even be caught within a hundred yards of him without a Haz-Mat suit on, but I respected the shamelessness. Breitbart didn’t do anything by halves, and even his most ardent detractors had to admit that he had a highly developed, if not always funny, sense of humor.”

That’s the sort of hyperbolic, attention-seeking comment that epitomized Breitbart’s existence. And that is exactly the point that Taibbi was making. It was a fitting tribute, not just to the man, but to his inner being and what he stood for; what he was most proud of. Breitbart defiantly rejected calls for civility, and when he was challenged to apologize for outrageous statements, he famously responded by barking back, “Apologize for what!” So how did Fox Nation report this news?

Fox Nation

Presumably the Fox Nationalists don’t think that Matt Taibbi is well enough known to carry a hit piece on his own. So they dressed it up with one of their favorite, and most childish insults – to refer to comedian Bill Maher as “Pig” Maher. But some pimply-faced editor still didn’t think that was enough, so they added a reference to the evil home of Donald Trump’s The Apprentice, NBC. Neither Maher nor NBC had anything to do with this story. Even the source article to which Fox Nation linked, from the uber-conservative NewsBusters, made no mention of these innocent bystanders. In fact the NewsBusters, while still incensed by Taibbi’s language, acknowledged a certain appropriateness. In their opening paragraph they say…

“I almost hate to draw attention to this incredibly sad example of the intolerant left over at Rolling Stone, but quite frankly, Andrew Breitbart probably would have eaten this up, and tweeted it back out.”

That’s absolutely true. Breitbart even tweeted back out a criticism of him that I sent just last week:

As I, and many others have noted, Breitbart would have been the first to proudly speak ill of the dead. On the day that Sen. Ted Kennedy died. Breitbart tweeted “Rest in Chappaquiddick.” He followed that up with several other disgraceful remarks that, unlike Taibbi, he could not frame as being tributes to the decedent.

Which brings us back to Fox Nation’s utterly unrelated assaults in their story’s headline. The inclusion of Maher and NBC was wholly the idea of Fox, and it really demonstrates how embarrassingly infantile the Fox Nationalists are. It’s bad enough that Fox is a netowrk that has no regard for the truth, but do they also have to embrace such brazenly immature rhetoric while they are lying?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:

Fox News’ Neil Cavuto Exposes GOP Camapign Ad Lie

Posted by on March 2, 2012 at 12:33 pm. 9 Comments :

A new campaign ad for Rhode Island congressional hopeful Barry Hinckley employs Hinckley’s adorable five year old son, Hudson, delivering a lecture on America’s debt crisis.

As it turns out, Hudson is just another GOP hack fronting for the ultra-wealthy power brokers of the right. There is obviously something unsavory in Hudson’s past because his Google history prior to 2006 has been completely scrubbed from the Internet.

Thank goodness for Fox News and Neil Cavuto. In a contentious interview, Cavuto got the devious toddler to admit that the positions he took in the ad were nothing but political hokum designed expressly for the purpose of advancing the electoral prospects of a member of his family (his father).

It remains to be seen what the impact will be to Hinckley’s campaign now that his primary spokesman has confessed publicly that he does not believe the debt crisis assertions in his fathers ad. Equally damaging to the campaign may be Hinckley’s answer to Cavuto asking whether or not Hudson knew what he was doing. Hinckley responded that “He sure did. We talked about it for a long time.” This suggests that Hinckley’s budget policy is so simplistic that a five year old can understand it. No one wonder Hinckley is running as a Republican.

Further evidence of Hinkley’s strong GOP credentials is that, when asked what he wants to do when he grows up, Hudson said that he “wants to be in a war and save the country.” What better answer for a future representative of the hawkish GOP that is presently trying to make little Hudson’s dream come true by inciting a new with Iran? Here’s hoping, for Hudson’s sake, that they fail.


Rush Limbaugh Calls Out The Bomb Squad

Posted by on March 2, 2012 at 9:44 am. 2 Comments :

Reporting from the deepest trenches of elitist One-Percent-Land, local news sources have disclosed that the bomb squad was dispatched to rescue Rush Limbaugh from a lighted plaque of Abraham Lincoln.

Threats against public figures really ought not to be made light of. There are very real and troubling risks very dangerous and disturbed individuals. However, the interesting part of this story was not so much that a suspicious box was delivered to the Limbaugh lair as this revelation:

“After being delivered Thursday afternoon it was X-rayed by staff at Limbaugh’s home — as is procedure for all mail delivered to the residence.”

So Rush has an X-ray machine at his home and uses it to scan all the mail he receives. That’s funny because there has been some attention paid lately to the alleged paranoia of Democrats and progressive citizens. Apparently that is a mockable character flaw when the left is accused of it, but nobody on the right thinks twice when one of their own is found to be scanning everything the mailman delivers.

I don’t really have a problem with Rush taking every precaution to insure his safety. After all, his rhetorical bomb-throwing often incites harsh responses from the innocent people he vilifies. For instance, in the past few days Rush has been castigating a student, Sandra Fluke, for speaking out about the Republican attempts to deny women necessary health care coverage. He has referred to her as a “slut” and a “prostitute” just because she was exercising her First Amendment rights. When she took offense to his remarks, on behalf of all women, Rush went ballistic, as did his pals at Fox News who posted this article on the Fox Nation web site with a recording of Rush’s harangue: Limbaugh Takes Blowtorch To Fluke ‘Slut’ Controversy.

Rush’s retort was a spittle-flecked tirade that affirmed his original insults and repeatedly misrepresented Fluke’s position on the issue. He deliberately lied to his listeners saying that Fluke was advocating that the government pay for her contraceptives. In fact, she is only asking that private insurance companies offer coverage, pretty much the same way they do for Limbaugh’s Viagra.

The tone that the debate has taken on the right is decidedly hostile. Yet conservatives are the ones making a big deal out of phony threats and calling out the actual bomb squads. These rightist chicken-littles should adjust their attitudes. And they should also lay off of people like David Brock of Media Matters for hiring a security guard. No doubt he has received his share of threats from people who object to documenting the actual repulsive things they say – like this latest screed from El Rushbo.


BigBeyond: Andrew Breitbart Dead At 43

Posted by on March 1, 2012 at 10:06 am. 11 Comments :


The pugnacious proprietor of the conservative collection of “Big” blogs (BigGovernment, BigJournalism, etc.), Andrew Breitbart, passed away last night while walking near his home in Los Angeles. At 43 years old this can be described as nothing less than shocking and a tragic blow to his family, including four young children.

I never met Breitbart but, in some distant respect, I knew him via his work and my study of his consuming mission to assault and/or reform the American media. We have that in common. However, it is a shallow connection as we probably would disagree on every matter of media and politics that might arise. Breitbart wrote in his autobiography, “Righteous Indignation” (See my review here), that…

“The biggest point I wanted to make was one I’m still making: Hollywood is more important than Washington. It can’t be overstated how important this message is: the pop culture matters.”

That was a view that he carried into almost every aspect of his work. He was a fierce practitioner of publicity stunts and relished opportunities to perform a sort of media jiu jitsu wherein the force of the press was deviously turned against itself. Who can forget the hijacking of the press conference that was called by former congressman Anthony Weiner by Breitbart, who commandeered the podium prior to Weiner’s arrival? Breitbart took questions from the assembled reporters as if it were his own press conference.


I originally created this image to portray Breitbart negatively, but today let it stand for what the character ultimately represented: Courage.

There is no cause of death being reported at this time, however, Breitbart was known to have heart problems. If true, there is a lesson here in that Breitbart was also well known for his hard-drinking lifestyle, which is not recommended for people with bad hearts. Our health is a treasure that we should all take care to preserve because our lives belong to more than just ourselves. Ask Breitbart’s widow, Susie. If you drink excessively, or smoke tobacco, or subsist on junk food, this would be a good time to reassess your priorities. You owe it to every person that loves you.

On days like this the animus of adversaries is subordinate to the reflection on a broader fate that all of us share. Breitbart’s passing is a deeply personal and somber event for those who cared about him, and their grief is deserving of respect. There will always be another day to lock horns in the battles we wage over the issues we mortals regard as significant, but significance, as it turns out, can be relative. For now I send my condolences and best wishes to his family, and hope that they can soon manage to find more gratitude for the time they had together than grief in their loss.

[Update] Michelle Malkin (among others) is making a fuss about some random “lefty” Tweets that are less than civil about the news of Breitbart’s passing. It is unfortunate (and disgusting) that she is exploiting this family’s tragedy for her political agenda. I don’t want to get into a debate with her, but when 99% of the left has been respectful, including Shirley Sherrod, David Shuster, Josh Marshall (TPM), Eric Boehlert (MMfA), and more, Malkin’s grousing is just plain sick. And besides, she might want to look back and see how Breitbart dealt with the death of another public figure, Ted Kennedy:

And he later Tweeted “Why do you grant a BULLY special status upon his death?” Breitbart is fortunate that his critics have more grace than he did. And Malkin, and the other rightist tools trying to turn this into a partisan brawl, should STFU. At least for a day or two.


Is ACORN Pimp James O’Keefe A Felon And A Rapist?

Posted by on March 1, 2012 at 3:33 am. 5 Comments :

James O'KeefeThere is a news report today that is raising the question of whether or not crocumentary videographer James O’Keefe is a felon and a rapist. The question has risen from the announcement by O’Keefe that he is suing the CurrentTV network, Keith Olbermann, and David Shuster over remarks allegedly made about allegations that he is a felon and a rapist.

What we already know about O’Keefe is that he is a liar and a convicted criminal. The videos he has produced over the past couple of years have invariably been proven to have been deceptively edited to reflect negatively on his victims.

He misrepresented himself in his ACORN videos as having entered ACORN offices dressed outlandishly as a pimp. It was later revealed that he never did so. He also cut out segments of his videos that showed his victims challenging him and he failed to disclose that some of his victims had even reported him to the police.

His NPR sting was so incompetently constructed that Glenn Beck’s web site (yes, that Glenn Beck) took it apart. The altered video was again selectively edited and this time even included replacing audio in parts with audio from other parts.

Then there is affair where O’Keefe attempted to lure a CNN reporter into a juvenile and salacious prank aboard his “love boat” that was designed to embarrass the reporter and the network. This stunt was so misguided that his own accomplice blew the whistle because she couldn’t go through with it.

His most recent escapade involved an attempt to demonstrate the ease with which one can cast a fraudulent vote. However, the only fraudulent activity he revealed was that of his own activities. He utterly failed to show that any voting fraud had or could occur using the methods he employed. But the use of those methods as captured in his video may have been illegal.

So now O’Keefe has filed a lawsuit alleging that he was been defamed by CurrentTV, Olbermann, and Shuster. The complaint cites instances of his having allegedly been referred to as a felon and a rapist.

The felon charge stems from his conviction in Louisiana for shenanigans in the office of Senator Mary Landrieu. O’Keefe and his cohorts entered the office dressed as telephone repairmen and asked to inspect the Senator’s phones. They were subsequently arrested and O’Keefe pleaded guilty to a misdemeanor of entering a federal building under false pretenses. So technically he is not a felon, which Shuster acknowledged and corrected. But he is still a convicted criminal and only avoided a felony record by pleading to a lesser crime.

The rape charge is a misstatement of events wherein O’Keefe was accused by a colleague of harassment in a case that included allegations of possible drugging. The case was dismissed due to jurisdictional issues, but could be reinstated in another court.

So was O’Keefe facing a rape charge? No, he was facing harassment charges. Was he a convicted felon? Not quite, but almost. And for this he is filing a defamation lawsuit. The man who has taken defamation to new levels of repulsiveness is so incensed at these affronts that he is willing to drag himself through the mud and remind everyone of his disgusting behavior.

Can you just picture his testimony? Can you see him on the stand asserting that he is not a felon because he was only convicted of a misdemeanor in a federal office? Can you hear his defense saying that he never faced rape charges, just charges that he held a woman against her will, possibly drugged her, and then threatened her and disparaged her in words and video?

The documents filed with the court go into lurid detail of his encounter with a female colleague and his criminal activity in Sen. Landrieu’s office. If anything, reading the entire complaint proves to me that there could not have been any defamation that was injurious to his reputation because his reputation is that of a scoundrel. To this day, the only persons ever convicted of any wrongdoing as a result of any of the video pranks O’Keefe has conducted are O’Keefe and his accomplices. And there is still other litigation against him pending.

Does O’Keefe really think that he has any chance of prevailing in court where he has to prove that the allegedly injurious statements were made with actual malice? Some of his complaints are merely misstatements, such as the charge that he was on parole. In fact, he was (and is) on probation, and it is highly unlikely that O’Keefe can prove that the use of the word “parole” was deliberate and intended to due him harm. Yet he is taking an aggressive stance in response to these trivialities despite the fact that doing so only exposes him to more bad publicity and coverage of his disgraceful antics and tawdry character. In a statement to his pals at Andrew Breitbart’s BigJournalism blog, O’Keefe said…

“I welcome criticism and even misguided hatred. But, if they call me a felon, if they call me a rapist, or any other disgusting, libelous, ridiculous thing, I will bring them into a courtroom, I will depose them, I will get access to their e-mails. I don’t care how many golden statues they have, I don’t care how many Emmies, Pulitzers they have. We will bring them to justice.”

That’s a fair amount of pseudo-bravado for someone who couldn’t even measure up to Glenn Beck’s ethical standards. But the material revelation in his statement is that he actually welcomes all of this, misguided hatred and all. He clearly enjoys being called a felon and a rapist. And he doesn’t even care if you’re Tom Hanks or Meryl Streep. The orgasmic thrill he gets just thinking about depositions and access to your email is palpable. So go ahead and call O’Keefe a felon and a rapist. It’s what he yearns for. And although he may not be a felon and a rapist now, I have every confidence that he will someday achieve his life’s ambition.


Fox Nation vs. Reality: America’s Founding Principles

Posted by on February 29, 2012 at 1:38 pm. 4 Comments :

What is it with conservatives who purport to revere American history but have virtually no knowledge or understanding of it? From GOP candidates who think that the Revolutionary War began in New Hampshire, to Republicans who reject marriage equality, to Supreme Court justices who think corporations are people. The right has fetishized the Constitution and canonized its authors, but they repeatedly show disdain for both through their ignorance.

The Fox Nationalists routinely abuse the American legacy by misrepresenting it and twisting its meaning in pursuit of their partisan agenda. This morning they ran an item that unfairly hammers President Obama with an accusatory headline saying “Obama Attacks America’s Founding Principles in Detroit.”

The basis for their assertion is an article that misquotes the President’s remarks to the UAW in Detroit yesterday. The article was originally published by CNS News, a subsidiary of the ultra-rightist Media Research Center, and slams Obama for allegedly saying that “trying to climb to the very top” is only about “greed.” But the President’s message was more than that. What he actually said was…

“America’s not just looking out for yourself, it’s not just about greed, it’s not just about trying to climb to the very top and keep everybody else down. When our assembly lines grind to a halt, we work together and we get them going again. When somebody else falters, we try to give them a hand up, because we know we’re all in it together.”

That part about not “keep[ing] everybody else down” was a significant omission. As is the part where Obama says that “we’re all in it together.” The notion of collective destiny is something that conservatives have profound trouble grasping. It’s why they hate unions and community organizing. However, another great American had something to say in this vein, and he knew a thing or two about America’s founding principles:

Ben Franklin

How long will it be before Newt Gingrich or Sarah Palin or Rush Limbaugh rips Benjamin Franklin apart for being a socialist Alinskyite?

Find us on Google+
Advertisement:


Koch Brothers Whine About Obama Fund Raising Letter

Posted by on February 28, 2012 at 1:03 pm. 9 Comments :

For a couple of multi-billionaires with virtually unlimited resources who vigorously engage in hardball political activity, the Koch brothers are an awfully lily-livered pair of wusses.

The Koch brothers created and bankrolled the Tea Party, an AstroTurf, corporate funded, pseudo-movement, that incessantly disparages President Obama as a communist, a Nazi, a Muslim, an atheist, a Kenyan, and a Manchurian agent whose mission is to deliver America to its enemies and/or Satan. The Kochs are also the money behind numerous think tanks and organizations whose purpose is to destroy the presidency through propaganda or outright manipulation and suppression of the vote (such as the American Legislative Exchange Council).

Despite their prominent role in attacking the President, the Kochs are wetting their britches because the Obama reelection team mentions them in a fund raising letter. The exchange looks something like this:

Obama Fund Raising Letter: In just about 24 hours, Mitt Romney is headed to a hotel ballroom to give a speech sponsored by Americans for Prosperity, a front group founded and funded by the Koch brothers. Those are the same Koch brothers whose business model is to make millions by jacking up prices at the pump, and who have bankrolled Tea Party extremism and committed $200 million to try to destroy President Obama before Election Day.

Koch Response: [I]t is an abuse of the President’s position and does a disservice to our nation for the President and his campaign to criticize private citizens simply for the act of engaging in their constitutional right of free speech about important matters of public policy. The implication in that sort of attack is obvious: dare to criticize the President’s policies and you will be singled out and personally maligned by the President and his campaign in an effort to chill free speech and squelch dissent. […] the inference is that you would prefer that citizens who disagree with the President and his policies refrain from voicing their own viewpoint. Clearly, that’s not the way a free society should operate.

Apparently the way a free society should operate, according to the Kochs, is that critics of the administration are permitted vast leeway to spew any and all slander that they like, but if the other side seeks to respond they are guilty of squelching dissent. That’s not debate. That’s a one-sided harangue. And it becomes media propaganda when the right-wing press links arms with the Kochs to take their side and whine about free speech. Seriously? Fox News is grumbling about free speech?

The Koch brothers have absolutely no case when they are actively orchestrating nasty campaigns against the White House and other Democrats, but expect their targets to stay silent. They have recruited Fox News, who spent six minutes on this topic this morning with Megyn Kelly and Laura Ingraham, but no opposing view. They recruited Rupert Murdoch’s Wall Street Journal a couple of weeks ago by planting an article written by the Kochs’ attorney on their editorial page. Fox Nation joined in with a featured item that linked back to the Kelly/Ingraham segment on Fox News. Kelly even plugged the Wall Street Journal article to bring the noise machine gears around full-circle.

The Kochs need to quit crying like toddlers lost in a Wal-Mart. They are not merely private citizens engaging in free speech. They are political powerhouses who have committed more than $200 million dollars to defeating the President. The Bush administration was quite vocal in denouncing their critics, including Cindy Sheehan, who was not a billionaire, but the mother of a slain soldier in Iraq. Vice-President Cheney actually did seek to chill free speech by explicitly warning people to “watch what you say.” But we never responded by whimpering about the White House being mean to us. We continued to press our case, get our message out, and speak truth to power.

If the Koch brothers think that they can persuade people that they are sympathetic waifs being put upon by a mean president, they are out of their minds. They are only embarrassing themselves by appearing to be wealthy weaklings who want to dish it out but run away weeping if the victim of their vitriol raises his voice.


Fox Nation vs. Reality: Taking Candy From Children

Posted by on February 28, 2012 at 9:53 am. 4 Comments :

Fox Nation is reporting the results of a new study that reveals some of the character differentials between the rich and the poor. As reported in the Huffington Post:

“The report contradicts the notion that poor people are more likely to act unethically out of financial necessity. Instead, the researchers wrote the ‘relative independence’ and ‘increased privacy’ of the wealthy make them more likely to act unethically. They also share ‘feelings of entitlement and inattention to the consequences of one’s actions on others’ that may play into their moral decisions.”

The study conducted experiments that showed that rich participants took twice as many candies as poorer participants from a jar that had been designated for children. The study also found that nearly half of all drivers of expensive cars cut off pedestrians at crosswalks, while no drivers of the cheapest cars did so (and only about 30% of drivers of less expensive cars). In addition, the study found that the rich were more likely to cheat in a game and lie to potential job applicants.

But the interesting part of the coverage by the Fox Nationalists is how they framed the study: LIB STUDY: Rich People More Likely to Take Candy from Children.

Fox Nation

The “LIB STUDY” prefix was attached by Fox in an obvious attempt to disparage the research and to bias readers against it before they even read the article. So who is this liberal institution that is poisoning the minds of America with their phony studies that bash our nation’s patriotic millionaires? Well, it’s that bastion of secular-progressive propaganda, the National Academy of Sciences.

This is just more evidence of the right’s knee-jerk reaction to science, education and higher learning. They have an involuntary motor response that causes them to shake uncontrollably whenever learned people present documented research. It just cuts against the grain of the conservative mind that favors religious fables over science and faith over proof.

This study is only a part of the body of research on human behavior. It may or may not be conclusive of anything as there are likely to be other studies that either affirm or negate its results. That isn’t important here. What’s important is that, regardless of what you might think of this study, the representation by Fox that the National Academy of Sciences is just some liberal operation and therefore undeserving of consideration, further defines them as anti-science, pseudo-news hacks who champion illiteracy and ignorance.


Soros Envy: Why Does Fox News Hate Rich People?

Posted by on February 27, 2012 at 7:59 pm. 15 Comments :

Ordinarily Fox News is the strongest advocate on behalf of the Greedy One Percent (GOP). They fiercely defend the the privileged class that they have endearingly tagged “job creators” (although that is far from true). They relentlessly oppose efforts to reform the tax code into something more equitable. And even though billionaires like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates agree that people like themselves are not paying a fair share, Fox News shouts nonsense about a class war that they invented.

But nothing comes as close to psychotic derangement as the right’s obsessive hatred of George Soros (except maybe Saul Alinsky and President Obama). In today’s FoxNews.com opinion section is an editorial titled: George Soros — the rich man who is hated around the world. What’s really interesting about this column is that the author, Dan Gainor of the uber-conservative Media Research Center, is actually correct.

Gainor has done his research and discovered that there are many nations in the world where Soros has cultivated a profound dislike. Gainor even provides a list of some of them. They include: Slovakia, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, and the Soviet Union. The thing that most of these places have in common is that they all suffered under oppressive regimes prior to Soros coming to the aid of the people.

So what we have here is Fox News complaining bitterly that the dictators and communists who were deposed by the freedom-loving citizens of their countries, with help from Soros, do not now regard Soros affectionately. Fox is literally taking the side of the former tyrants who, not surprisingly, are somewhat upset with Soros. By extension we must assume that Gainor would prefer that Soros had minded his own business and let the tyrants continue their rule and their reign of terror.

This is the same sort of deranged thinking that resulted in Fox finding fault with the Seal Team assault on Osama Bin Laden. If Obama had anything to do with it, it must be bad – no matter how good it is. And the same goes for George Soros. So even though Soros helped to defeat the bad guys, the only thing Fox notices is that now all the bad guys hate him, and somehow that make Soros a bad guy.

This twisted criticism, however, is not the only point that Gainor sought to make with his article. He is also emphatically opposed to Soros’ philanthropic activities. Gainor complains that Soros has committed $8 billion to his Open Society Foundation that aids a diverse variety of international charitable organizations. But Gainor sees no irony in the fact that he is the Boone Pickens Fellow at the Media Research Center. That means that his position was endowed by another billionaire who bankrolls international charitable causes. What’s more, the Media Research Center is the beneficiary of millions of dollars from the John Birch Society, the Koch brothers, and the Scaife family foundations – all wealthy philanthropists with designs on influencing the direction of certain nations, particularly the United States. And we can add Rupert Murdoch to that group as his news enterprises are among the biggest customers of the Media Research Center.

Dan Gainor is a profoundly inept critic. He once condemned an imagined conspiracy by Soros and, in the process, implicated himself. He further embarrassed himself recently by declaring that Arianna Huffington is “the most powerful propagandist since a guy named Goebbels.” Then he penned a column upbraiding Rachel Maddow for a mistake made during her program, apparently unfamiliar with the cornucopia of on-air gaffes that Fox News seems to add to daily.

Fox News has made preaching the divinity of capitalism a staple of its programming. And they love nothing more than a wealthy individual who they can promote as proof of their Randian orthodoxy. But whatever you do, do not become a liberal billionaire. Fox has an entirely different standard for those practitioners Satanism. In fact, Fox hates them. What is it that Fox hates about rich people that actually care about people who are not rich?