Maher called him a “blatant bald-assed liar. … These are out and out lies.”
Watch the video below, via HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher.
Maher called him a “blatant bald-assed liar. … These are out and out lies.”
Watch the video below, via HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher.
If Fox News host Bill O’Reilly has a “Brian Williams problem,” as his detractors hope, it may be one with a different outcome.
In a statement Sunday, a spokesperson for the cable channel said, “Fox News Chairman and C.E.O. Roger Ailes and all senior management are in full support of Bill O’Reilly,” according to The New York Times.
O’Reilly is contesting accusations that he has repeatedly exaggerated his war-reporting experience.
An article by Mother Jones last week claimed that O’Reilly has misled audiences with multiple accounts about his experience reporting for CBS News during the 1982 Falklands War between the United Kingdom and Argentina, and in El Salvador.
O’Reilly never set foot in a war zone like the one he described, the article by Mother Jones asserts, featuring quotes from his CBS contemporaries.
“Nobody got to the war zone during the Falklands war,” CBS News producer Susan Zirinsky told the magazine, adding that the military junta in Argentina prevented American reporters from getting to the islands.
“I never said I was on the Falkland Islands,” O’Reilly said on “The O’Reilly Factor” last Friday. “I said I covered the Falklands, which is what I did.”
“This is such a smear, it is unbelievable,” O’Reilly told Fox News’ Howard Kurtz on his “MediaBuzz” program Sunday.
But since Mother Jones published its article, others have come forward to criticize O’Reilly’s version of events.
Another former colleague pushed back on O’Reilly’s accounts late last week in a lengthy Facebook post.
Eric Engberg, a former CBS News correspondent who covered the aftermath of the Falklands conflict from Buenos Aires, said that O’Reilly’s story about covering a protest in the Argentine capital wasn’t accurate, adding that it was a “relatively tame riot” after Argentina surrendered to the British on the islands.
“It was an ‘expense account zone,’” Engberg wrote.
O’Reilly responded to the post on Sunday, reading from a contemporary New York Times dispatch that recounted police using tear gas to disperse “thousands of angry Argentines who had massed in front of the presidential palace.” Engberg said that the Fox News host’s story about his cameraman getting run down and “bleeding from the ear” could have only happened during that event.
“I don’t think he was there. I don’t think he knows what happened,” O’Reilly said of Engberg, adding that he had requested the video of the protest from CBS News.
CBS News confirmed to Deadline that it is in the process of locating video of the incident O’Reilly is referencing.
The Fox News host has said he was in a “war zone” that apparently no American correspondent reached.
After NBC News suspended anchor Brian Williams for erroneously claiming that he was nearly shot down in a helicopter while covering the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, Fox News host Bill O’Reilly went on a tear. On his television show, the top-rated cable news anchor declared that the American press isn’t “half as responsible as the men who forged the nation.” He bemoaned the supposed culture of deception within the liberal media, and he proclaimed that the Williams controversy should prompt questioning of other “distortions” by left-leaning outlets. Yet for years, O’Reilly has recounted dramatic stories about his own war reporting that don’t withstand scrutiny—even claiming he acted heroically in a war zone that he apparently never set foot in.
O’Reilly has repeatedly told his audience that he was a war correspondent during the Falklands war and that he experienced combat during that 1982 conflict between England and Argentina. He has often invoked this experience to emphasize that he understands war as only someone who has witnessed it could. As he once put it, “I’ve been there. That’s really what separates me from most of these other bloviators. I bloviate, but I bloviate about stuff I’ve seen. They bloviate about stuff that they haven’t.”
It bothers me a great deal that MLK III acquiesced to Bill O’Reilly’s insulting remarks…
Guest Martin Luther King III told the host of “The O’Reilly Factor” that America needs to hear a unifying message amid recent racial turmoil. O’Reilly interjected with his suggestion for “a pathway to success” for black people.
“Don’t abandon your children. Don’t get pregnant at 14. Don’t allow your neighborhoods to deteriorate into free-fire zones. That’s what the African American community should have on their T-shirts,” he said.
“Am I wrong?” O’Reilly asked his guest.
King almost immediately segued to a different point. “Well, I think that’s a part of it, but that’s not the entirety,” he said, going on to say Americans need to address more than just police misconduct.
Watch the clip, via Media Matters:
The clip is almost too infuriating to watch
Conservatives have a fraught relationship with the concept of stupidity. When Jonathan Gruber referenced the stupidity of the American people, conservative media blew a collective gasket. Meanwhile, pundits attribute any disagreement with Dems to the opposing party’s lack of education, or amazing ignorance. On Monday evening’s edition of “The O’Reilly Factor,” Bill O’Reilly criticized the St. Louis Rams for choosing to run on to the field on Sunday in the “Hands up, don’t shoot” position in honor of Michael Brown. It isn’t that the players are appalled by police brutality and the systematic criminalization of minorities, said O’Reilly. Rather, the host argues, they aren’t even smart enough to know what’s going on.
“Look, you’ve got crazy people on all sides, Bill,” said Juan Williams, arguing with the host’s opinion that anyone who assumes the “Hands up, don’t shoot” position thinks thatall police are hunting down all minorities. “But if you think that those football players identify and say, ‘Oh, all cops are bad?’ That is not true.”
“No,” O’Reilly responds with the utmost condescension. “Quite frankly, I don’t think they’re smart enough to know what they’re doing. I don’t. I absolutely don’t think they’re smart enough to know what they’re doing.”
Watch the full clip HERE, if only because it is particularly gratifying to see Mary Katherine Ham and Juan Williams totally disgusted with O’Reilly throughout the segment.
A few months ago, O’Reilly had dismissed the idea of “white privilege” as a fantasy, and Stewart challenged him on that, practically starting the interview saying “I want you to admit that there is such a thing as white privilege.”
O’Reilly stuck to his argument about Asians doing well, therefore maybe Asian privilege exists, but Stewart argued “white males set the system.” O’Reilly shot back it’s ridiculous because there’s “no more slavery, no more Jim Crow,” and the president is black. Stewart argued the residual effects still exist today.
Things got really heated and O’Reilly and Stewart were practically yelling at each other at one point. Stewart asked him at one point, “Why so defensive about it?”
Watch the face-off below (extended version), via Comedy Central:
Video embed updated to include FULL interview…
Bill O’Reilly’s attempts to use the success of Asian-Americans to shame African-Americans is shameful and historically illiterate.
“Talking Points does not—does not—believe in white privilege.”
That was Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s big, brave pitch during his third-person “talking points” segment on Tuesday’s edition of The O’Reilly Factor. The peg for the segment was the uproar and race issues surrounding the police shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, earlier this month. O’Reilly was blasting the idea of people citing “white privilege” to help explain anger or inequality in predominantly black community. He railed against a perceived failure of black leaders to spark a “cultural revolution” in their “precincts,” and the lack of personal responsibility instilled in young African-Americans.
Of course Bill O’Reilly doesn’t believe that the concept of white privilege exists. (Neither does much of the rest of Fox News.) He has denied the existence of such a privilege for white Americans in previous segments, including one in which he falsely claimed that Harvard Kennedy School was requiring freshmen to take a class on the subject.
O’Reilly’s latest salvo of white-privilege denialism has already been mocked and (rightly) criticized enough. But one aspect of his crotchety monologue that was particularly unappealing was how he invoked the general economic and academic successes Asian-Americans in order to highlight the supposed failings of African-Americans.
“So, do we have Asian privilege in America?” the Fox host asked rhetorically. “Because the truth is that Asian-American households earn far more money than anyone else.”
O’Reilly also compares the statistic on Asian-American children raised in single-parent households (13 percent) to that of African-Americans (a “whopping” 55 percent) to make the point that Asian families in this country are stronger. This is a favorite bugaboo of O’Reilly’s, and in the past he’s even said that First Lady Michelle Obama should come on his show and tell black teens, “You stop having sex; you stop getting pregnant.”
O’Reilly has made the Asian-privilege pointbefore. He’s also praised Asian folks by asserting that, “Asian people are not liberal, you know, by nature” because “they’re usually more industrious and hard-working.” (It’s worth noting that not all Asian demographics fit neatly into this positive stereotype that colors the way O’Reilly talks about Asian citizens.)
First, let’s be consistent and call this phenomenon “yellow privilege.” So, sure, you could reasonably argue that there is a general yellow privilege that people who look like me enjoy in the United States. For instance, Asian-American men under the age of 35 have a far lower chance of being wrongly accosted by a police officer than a young black man would. The difference is that, unlike white people, we don’t have a bitter, well-payed armada of commentators to go on TV and complain about black people every time someone brings said privilege up.
But the real reason O’Reilly black-yellow comparison is so annoying and intellectually dishonest is because it is patently bizarre to compare the Asian-American experience to the African-American one. Such a crass talking point—one that uses the favorable stats of one minority group to attack the culture of another—overlooks, or at least glosses over, some of the most obvious facts and tragedies in our nation’s history. Generations of Asian-Americans did not endure the traumas, legacies, and residual effects of slavery, Jim Crow, and decades of racist housing policy. These are factors that O’Reilly mentions only as an aside, preferring to talk more about the importance of getting black kids to “speak properly” and behave themselves in public.
Asian-Americans and African-Americans have had very different experiences in America, a complicated reality that O’Reilly and many of his colleagues do not seem eager to tackle. But at least his commentary in the wake of the Michael Brown tragedy has been more refined than some of his co-workers—a thought that is less a compliment to Bill, and far more indicative of the kind of organism that Fox News has become.
Uh oh. President Obama went golfing for a second time while on vacation since video surfaced on Tuesday of an American journalist being murdered in Syria. Naturally, conservatives haven’t been this angry since they were that angry over Obama golfing the first time he did it.
If it seems like criticizing Obama for going golfing is something conservatives do a lot, that’s because it is something conservative do a lot. The thing is, however, it’s not always clear when the President shouldn’t go golfing. The problem is that Republicans haven’t actually written down its ever-growing list of circumstances under which Obama should not go golfing.
In the interest of saving Obama from further golf-related criticism, and from hitting the sand more than an beach volleyball, I’ve made the following list:
April 26: Fox News astutely observes that cameras aren’t being allowed to film Obama golfing during the swine flu scare, thereby suggesting the White House knows he shouldn’t be golfing.
Pro tip: No golfing during hyped-up viral outbreaks.
July 26: Obama plays golf for the tenth time in 10 weeks, earning him the nickname, “The First Duffer” among reporters too unimportant to get the nickname to stick.
Pro tip: No golfing 10 times in a 10 week span
April 18: The Icelandic volcano eruption prevents Obama from traveling to Poland to attend the Polish President’s funeral, so, as the Washington Times notes, he plays golf instead.
Pro tip: No golfing during a foreign leader’s funeral after planning to attend, but not attending due to a huge continent-wide volcanic eruption.
June 20: Obama goes golfing while oil is still leaking into the Gulf of Mexico from BP’s exploded rig. RNC Chair Michael Steele demands Obama stop golfing until the leak stops, which apparently Obama could easily do by SCUBA diving down plugging it himself.
Pro tip: No golfing during oil spills.
March 5: Obama goes golfing while the price of oil increases.
Pro tip: No golfing while the price of oil increases. To achieve this, carry a real-time, tick-by-tick oil chart out on the course and only golf when the price is decreasing. And by “oil,” I mean good old West Texas Intermediate crude; none of that sissy European Brent crude shit.
March 16: Obama goes golfing as the Fukushima nuclear plant in Japan continues to leak radioactive material.
Pro tip: No golfing during nuclear plant meltdowns anywhere in the world.
May 1: Obama plays nine holes and finishes several hours before the start of the Navy SEAL mission that would kill Osama bin Laden. However, on November 7, several conservative media outlets, including Town Hall, Newsmax, and the ever-accurateInfoWars, will erroneously report that Obama was golfing a mere 20 minutes before the raid. Later, this accusation will morph into a less enraging claim that Obama was playing cards near, but not in the situation room before the raid.
Pro tip: No golfing during the 24 hours leading up to a major special ops raid just in case conservatives get confused. In fact, the night before, randomly hold a nationally televised presidential address declaring a one-day presidential golfing moratorium so everyone knows you definitely weren’t golfing.
May 30: Fox notes that Obama goes golfing on Memorial Day after participating in ceremonies earlier because he should’ve done sad things for the entire of the day. It would’ve been more appropriate for Obama to do what Fox’s Bill O’Reilly did one Memorial Day: send a producer to interview scantily clad women at a beach.
Pro tip: No golfing on Memorial Day.
June 25: Then House Majority Whip
Frank Underwood Kevin McCarthy says Obama should stop golfing while debt ceiling negotiations are ongoing.
Pro tip: No golfing when Republicans are threatening to let the country default if they don’t get what they want.
August 23: Obama goes golfing on vacation at Martha’s Vineyard as a 5.8 earthquake hits Washington, D.C. Or he was biking. There seems to be some uncertainty.
Pro tip: Beat seismologists to the punch by gaining foreknowledge of earthquakes and do not golf during them.
November 15: Obama golfs with an old friend who was charged with soliciting a prostitute.
Pro tip: No golfing with people accused of soliciting prostitutes, unless it’s Republican David Vitter because bipartisanship.
December 7: Mitt Romney says, “It’s time to have a president whose idea of being ‘hands on’ doesn’t mean getting a better grip on the golf club.”
Pro tip: No golfing when your likely presidential opponent thinks you’re golfing too much because he’s definitely not saying it to score a soundbite.
April 18: Mitt Romney tells Obama to stop golfing so much.
Pro tip: Ibid.
June 14: In an amazing arithmetical breakthrough, the Washington Times reports,
The next time President Obama hits the links, it will be his 100th round of golf since coming to the White House. That’s quite a milestone in just 3 1/2 years.As it takes him about six hours to drive to the greens and complete 18 holes, Mr. Obama has spent the equivalent of four months’ worth of work time golfing.
At six hours apiece, 100 rounds means a total of 600 hours spent playing golf. Divided by 24 hours, that’s 25 days-worth of golf. But the Times is talking about “work time” because that’s obviously a clearly defined unit of measurement. Also, the presidency is sort of just like a 9-5 job. Also, surely no one ever plays just nine holes of golf, which would halve the time it takes. So therefore, four months “work time.”
Pro tip: No golfing in such a way that leaves you vulnerable to conservatives’ impregnable Jedi math.
July 19: “Obama spends more time on golf than economy.”
Pro tip: No golfing when you’re not spending more time on the economy.
July 23: Obama plays golf “instead of visiting Israel.”
Pro tip: No golfing while you’re not visiting Israel.
February 19: Obama goes golfing with Tiger Woods as negotiations in Congress are ongoing about how to stave off automatic budget cuts.
Pro tip: No golfing with Tiger Woods.
March 6: Texas Rep. Louie Gohmert introduces an amendment to prevent Obama from golfing after the White House briefly stops giving tours as budget negotiations continue.
Pro tip: No golfing when the White House isn’t giving tours. And no golfing when a very serious person like Gohmert says no golfing.
August 31: Obama goes golfing after announcing the U.S. should conduct military strikes against Bashar al-Assad’s regime in Syria. In a double whammy for Republicans, Obama ends up not ordering the strikes.
Pro tip: No golfing after getting Republicans all hot and bothered with dirty-talk about airstrikes only to have it end up being one big tease.
April 23: Obama goes golfing instead of attending the funeral of his aunt in South Boston.
Pro tip: No golfing during the funeral of relatives in South Boston you may not have seen in many years or ever. Or if you must, go to the funeral and then hit the TPC Boston in Norton.
August 7: No one criticizes Obama for golfing on this day, but incredibly, “The First Duffer” nickname reemerges five years later in a 2,700-word feature on Obama’s golf game inPolitico. The strange conclusion is that Obama goes golfing to temporarily escape from his failed presidency.
Pro tip: This feature piece implies that Obama is increasingly retreating into golf to getaway from the stress that comes with having a failed presidency. Thus, Obama should’ve gone golfing a lot more during the earlier years of his presidency, so it would look like he’s doing less golfing and more presidenting than he was previously.
Like this guy, who quit golf altogether in 2003:
On Thursday night, Bill O’Reilly read emails from viewers as part of his “Mad as Hell” segment. The Fox News host was joined by Heather Nauert, who helped him determine whether those viewers have the proper justification to be so angry. One letter from a Louisiana man helped the host get to the bottom of Fox’s infamous “fair and balanced” motto.
“I’m aggravated when I see smug liberals like Kirsten Powers and Alan Colmes on the air. Enough already with these leftists,” viewer Ed Ortelli wrote.
“Well, look, ‘fair and balanced’ is the Fox News motto, Ed,” O’Reilly said, smirking. “If the liberal view were not represented we would be liars, so that’s ridiculous.” A brave O’Reilly asked Nauert how many Fox contributors do “lean left.”
She came up with a total of 19 paid contributors on the Fox network who have a liberal point of view, citing Bob Beckel and James Carville as examples. But just when you thought Nauert was going to give a number for the right-leaning contributors, she simply said, “We have a mixed boat.”
A quick look at the Fox News website shows that the network listed a total of 175 on air personalities. So if they are admitting they only have left-leaning contributors, that leaves 156 who go the other way. That means Fox News is approximately 11% liberal and 89% conservative. In other words, “fair and balanced.”
O’Reilly’s reaction to Nauert’s assessment said it all. “So we are fairly, in our commentary, balanced,” the host remarked. “We have much more on the left than, say… uh… I’m trying to think, you know CNN? I don’t know. But 19, OK, that’s the number.”
Conservatives lose their minds over last week’s late-night shakeup, while a GOP candidate talks incest
This article originally appeared on AlterNet.
1. Various conservative clowns: Stephen Colbert will single-handedly destroy America.
The hysteria on the right about Stephen Colbert’s elevation to CBS’s Late Night post has been nothing short of hilarious. Even before news hit that Colbert would replace David Letterman when he retires, Bill O’Reilly frantically declared that Colbert is responsible for the “destruction of America.” That’s quite a distinction, when there are so many other things vying for the title of “America’s Top Destroyer.” (Wait, reality contest show idea: “Who will be America’s Next Top Destroyer?”)
More than failing infrastructure, abject refusal to deal with the coming climate catastrophe, rampant, spiraling inequality to rival the Gilded Age, near daily mass shootings, the criminalization of poverty; or deportation of millions of legions of innocent undocumented immigrants [insert your favorite scourge here], it is Stephen Colbert who is ushering in the decline of this great nation. In addition, O’Reilly also said, Colbert is an “ideological fanatic,” a “deceiver” and responsible for the mayhem following UConn’s March Madness win.
No, we don’t really get that last one either.
Rush Limbaugh sputtered that Colbert’s promotion was “an assault on the heartland of America,” prompting millions of heartlanders to scurry to their bomb shelters with multiple firearms, canned goods and bottled water. He also said it represented a “redefinition of comedy,” a “redefinition of what’s funny.” This is true, Rush. Comedy has been redefined to mean something that makes actual people laugh.
And, after numerous attempts to identify the full extent of the outrage, Breitbart editor Ben Shapiro finally landed on this metaphor: In making a career out of pitch-perfect conservative pundit mockery, Stephen Colbert was guilty of no less than the moral equivalent of “vile political blackface.” Clever wordsmith Shapiro called this “Conservativeface,” a neologism that seems destined to catch on.
No word on whether Colbert is the Anti-Christ.Although a few years back a little outfit called Christfire implied as much, calling Colbert Stalinesque, Hitleresque and a bigger threat to America than Islamic terrorism.
All right ye liberals! You’ve been warned! Laugh your way straight into Satan’s clutches.
2. Advisor to Texas GOP gubernatorial hopeful: (OK, it’s Charles Murray): There’s no evidence women are significant thinkers.
It’s pretty well known that American Enterprise Institute “scholar” Charles Murray is a colossally dishonest thinker who shrouds claims of white intellectual superiority in pseudo-science. But he has proven himself offensive and wrongheaded on other topics as well. This week at a talk at University of Texas, he stood by his claim that women have not contributed much significant thought to the field of philosophy. But don’t feel too bad, gals, because Murray did allow that some of you are very good in literature.
Murray’s enlightened views on women naturally include his oppositions to equal pay laws. He argues that such laws would hurt women by discouraging companies from hiring them, and anyway he doesn’t even believe in pay discrimination—it’s a myth invented by liberals. “Women prefer to stay home with their children,” he says. And they also choose lower-paying jobs.
Who cares what Charles Murray says, you ask? Well, Texas GOP hopeful Gregg Abbott does. He takes some of his cues on education from Murray and specifically cited Murray’s work in his argument against universal pre-K. Of course, Abbott keeps some pretty questionable company in general. He’s also appeared with Ted Nugent, whose enlightened views on women and blacks are fairly well known.
3. Virginia GOP candidate Bob Marshall: No incest exception for abortion because sometimes people want to have incest.
The good people of Virginia have themselves a real prize in Republican Bob Marshall, who is running to represent them in Congress. In fact, his views are so extreme on things like abortion and same-sex marriage that even his fellow Virginia Republicans can’t stand him. And that is saying something. He’s the one who introduced the bill requiring women who want abortions to have an ultrasound first, which helped make Virginia the butt of late-night jokes.
Still, he does have a following among other crazy social conservatives who could carry him to a congressional seat, where he could continue to embarrass his state. Marshall is anti-abortion, anti-same-sex marriage and anti-Planned Parenthood. He has some pretty bizarre religious ideas, too. Remarks of his that came to light this week include his opposition to abortions even in the case of incest, because, “How do you know it’s not voluntary? Sometimes it is.”
He has also said that disabled children are punishment for women having abortions. Here is his very science-based assertion: “The number of children who are born subsequent to a first abortion who have handicaps has increased dramatically. Why? Because when you abort the firstborn of any, nature takes its vengeance on the subsequent children,” he said.
No clue as to what his source for this bizarre claim is. Voices in his head, perhaps.
4. Reince Priebus: There should be no caps on campaign donations at all!
The chairman of the Republican National Party, Reince Priebus, echoed the words of his master Charles Koch this week when he came out for removing all caps on campaign donations. He also suggested that donors should not even have to be disclosed. Well, theoretically, he thinks disclosure might be okay, but….
“I mean, you want to be for disclosure,” Preibus said. “But when you start to see some of the cases out there where people are targeted, and businesses are targeted and picketed and threatened for political contributions, then now you’re suppressing free speech through disclosure. So I mean, even things that I want to agree with are getting to be very difficult.”
So to summarize, money is speech and should therefore not be limited in any way (particularly when it is flowing into Republican coffers). But unlike actual speech, money should be spoken in secret and not be open to scrutiny or criticism.
Because that hurts money’s feelings.
5. Detroit columnist Nolan Finley: Woman candidate is “milking the vagina business.”
Detroit News’ editorial page editor and columnist Nolan Finley displayed his ability to keep it real classy this week. Notoriously anti-Democratic and pro-corporate, he has long been using his perch to rabidly oppose the candidacy of Democrats, most recently Democratic gubernatorial candidate Mark Schauer and his running mate, Lisa Brown. This week Finley wrote:
[Brown’s] confrontational style will give the ticket the spunk the colorless Schauer lacks, but won’t broaden his appeal. Brown could help bring in campaign cash, however. She’s still milking the vagina business, and is a minor celebrity among feminists.
Wait, there’s a vagina business that can be milked? How come we did not know that?
What that curious term means to Finley is that Lisa Brown favors reproductive rights for women, which in his world (roughly the 1950s) makes her an extreme left-wing liberal.
Milking the vagina business.
What will the Republican woman haters club come up with next?
6. Minnesota GOPer: I’m running for Congress because no child should be exposed to science.
Aaron Miller loves to tell the story of how his daughter came home in tears from school on the day when she learned about evolution. That’s not what her daddy taught her. Determined that his daughter and other innocent children should never again be exposed to science that might be upsetting to them, Miller was galvanized to run for Congress. The government has obviously declared “war on our values,” he thought. Well, he was just going to declare war right back at them.
Miller has already gotten endorsements from other creationists in government, like Minnesota State Rep. Allen Quist, who has argued that it is only reasonable people and dinosaurs coexisted and that the Book of Job offers science lessons.
He also joins a GOP field full of anti-science deep thinkers, like Paul Broun of Georgia who knows that evolution is a lie “straight from the pit of hell.” In Texas, all four GOP candidates competing for the lieutenant governorship in Texas are pushing to teach creationism in public schools. Even more plentiful are the climate science deniers. They even get to head up congressional science committees.
Because the GOP is determined that every child should grow up in blissful ignorance.
7. Florida Rep: Floridians can’t vote on solar ballot measure.
Solar energy is increasingly popular among Floridians, which is why a Republican representative is hellbent on keeping the issue out of the polls. As we all learned in high school civics class, democracy means not letting people vote on things you don’t want them to vote on. A Senate committee in the Sunshine State approved an amendment for the November ballot that would give tax breaks to businesses that install solar panels. But Ritch Workman is using his power as the chairman of the House Finance and Tax Committee to prevent that from happening. His lame excuse?
“I just don’t see the need to continue to expand the incentives and underwriting of solar,’’ Workman said. “Solar is coming a long way and eventually it’s going to be able to stand on its own two feet. But right now it doesn’t.”
More likely, say proponents of the bill, Workman is under the sway of Florida’s electric utilities, which adamantly oppose rooftop solar energy because it will end their monopoly.
Ah well, it’s not as if there’s some big hurry to convert to clean energy or anything. It’s not as if climate change and global warming are some big urgent problem that the whole country needs to immediately address in no uncertain terms in order to avert what is certain to be catastrophic climate events, the likes of which we are only just beginning to see. No, no, no.
Anyway, we all know the sun is for frying your skin, not heating your home or running your appliances. Silly.