IN RESPONSE TO BILL O'RIELLY ON SAN FRANCISCO

Come on people, let's put this whole thing into a little perspective. If you thought what Bill said was so offensive, and it may have truly been offensive, then why didn't you make such a hoopla when the professor at Colorado state mentioned how all the victims of 9/11 were just Nazis "little Ikemans" or when Al Franken/Michael Moore say something just as offensive. Personally, comparing the victims of 9/11 to Nazis is faaaaaar more offensive to me than someone saying Al queda should bomb Coit tower. Moreover, I've heard far worse seep out of the lips of Al Franken. So why the big deal?? Is it because I live in the bay area? Hmmm.

Somehow it is OK to call innocent victims of 9-11 who simply were going to work to support their families as “Little Ikemans”

The media in the Bay Area(San Francisco) has a tendency to vilify Bill O'reilly. Coincidentally, the people of the bay area who limit their viewing and only watch non cable TV are unfortunately naive enough to see one excerpt of bill's show and immediately pass absolute judgment without even seeing the whole show .. In fact, what they actually see is an exacerbated jovial tone taken out of context and replayed on the media for all to see. Initially, I was even taken aback by the statement until I watched the whole show in its entirety....little do they know that if they actually watch the bill o’reilly show with more regularity they would agree with 90% OF WHAT HE SAYS..(ok..probably not)....as for me, I just tack this on to the other 10%. Unfortunately, they only see one view and have no other input for impartial comparison, hence disfiguring their perspective. To them, CBS,NBC,ABC and other network television outlets are the holy grail for news worthiness.

Yes, I agree, ultimately all these comments are bad and yes, they all come full circle, but then why don't they equally share the same media attention (especially in the liberal Bay AREA!! ..maybe I just answered my question). Well I guess when I say lack of perspective, I should say lack of reputable media sources. It may be really hard for some to attain any perspective when all they read is CNN on the internet, or listen to KRON 4, KTVU, NBC11 CBS 5,etc. (these are all local news channels where I live - CBS channel 5 is the worst of them all) or Time Magazine, or newspapers like the Argus ( my gf lives in Fremont, CA and I have a whole blog dedicated to the impropriety of the ARGUS newspaper) all of which are heavily biased.....and if you think these examples belong to the epitome of ethical journalism or are the end all for all that is sacred truth and factual, then you are in for a big surprise.

So Bill, please don't apologize for anything. The military should recruit in High Schools! People respond to me by saying " well you had a way out they didn't recruit at your High School ( I went to a private HS), but they recruit more heavily in impoverished neighborhoods where they don't have a way out" (REMEMBER THE WORDS "WAY OUT"... I will discuss this later)

Ok let me defend this point. First, my HS was heavily recruited by the military, granted it wasn't the traditional army or marines. But I remember West point, the naval academy @anapolis, and the Air Force Academy @colorado springs were at my HS every week in the months of sept., oct., and nov. and it wasn't like they had a gun to our heads telling us we needed to join. As for impoverished neighborhoods, the HS kids in oakland, fremont, concord, richmond, pittsburg (the east bay in the bay area is more impoverished the rest of the bay area) all have the exact same choice I do when a recruiter goes into their neighborhood. But yes, to the typical liberal outsider, it may seem like these poor, downtrodden black/mexican/asian(<---insert your growing CA majority here) children could either join the detriment of the (no way out) US military or sling crack and be in a gang for a living ..so they don't have the same choice. And yes, this may very well be true in some circumstances, but let us add a more biased view. The Military has helped more people who sling crack for a living than any other profession in the united states. And guess what, if your parents sling crack, you most likely will also have the short lived profession of slinging crack. So by all means, the military is a nice alternative to turn your life around. I know I am being a little cynical but here is the cold hard truth...there will always be impoverished neighborhoods in this world, and there is nothing you nor I can do to completely eliminate them. There will always be the rich and there will always be the poor. And to be completely politically incorrect, the harshness of being poor may harden an individual making them a prime candidate for the military (among other professions). Is this exploitation? suuure ..and so be it..be thankful ...why? Because there are only two types of people in this world : the exploitee and the exploiter..the have and the have nots.

So in essence, the military should have a more positive connotation associated with it than "the no way out-so-lets-go join the military" option. The military should be viewed as a more viable and serious career option ..FOR THE RIGHT PERSON. I personally know many people from impoverished neighborhoods that i've met in college who have used the military as a springboard to further the quality of their lives and their careers and most attribute their extreme success to their experiences in the military. In the same manner, I also have met people who served in the military and have a sort of disdain for the military and their lives are mediocre at best. So I guess its hard to say, how people will turn out after their stint in the military, but who am I or you to say whether or not a recruiter from the military or from a non-reputable college can or cannot go to your HS for recruiting purposes. If it were me, and I was a military recruiter..I would do what a boxing promoter does. Go to the poorest harshest most gang infested neighborhoods and check out their boxing gyms. A boxing promoter finds his best fighters where the population of tough hardened individuals is the highest ..just ask Mike Tyson where he came from before he became the (former) undisputed boxing champion. In the same manner, the military should recruit in these locations.

If you step waaaay back and I mean look at the real big picture here..(sometimes it's hard for liberals to think outside of the box...their lust for peace and their dangerous reverence for anything humanitarian clouds their judgement) ...this whole scenario also serves as a form of societal equilibrium: as long as the military recruits more and more hardened "wannabee" criminal youths who enjoy slinging crack, the less crime society will endure...and if any part of society should be expendable, it should be criminals who have a tendancy for violence..and to make this incredibly simple for our liberal readers : a soldier's first priority in war is to kill other people...since that is the type of person we need in the military why not preference people who are already in the business of wanting to kill. They fail to realize war is death and this death, although tragic, helps prevent longterm unnecessary suffering. This sounds a little inhumane and direct, but reality usually is..