I'm beginning to think that I could just watch Fox "News" every morning and I would never have to worry again about having something to post here. This morning, the BHBB on "Fox and Fools" was interviewing Dr. Brian Weiss about his book, "Many Lives, Many Masters". It's a book about past lives and using past life "regression" to fix problems people have in their lives. One example he gave (and I'm not making this up) was if you had neck pain that it may be that you were hanged in a past life and by helping you "remember" that, you can cure the pain. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? This is what FOX considers news, some quack peddling nonsense? It's bad enough that they put their own slant on real news stories, including flat out lying about things. But this, really? I admit it's not as if Fox "News" had any credibility before anyway. If they ever did, though, this got rid of it for sure.
Sorry, folks, but you didn't have any past lives and you're not going to have any future ones. Just look at it from a strictly mathematical standpoint. There are MANY (we're talking literally billions) more people who are living today than lived in the past. Are there some people who have lived before and other people who are new souls? If that's the case, how is it that every person who goes to a quack like this Dr. Weiss is told that they had a past life? You would think once in a while they'd come across someone who didn't have any past lives. In fact, the difference between the amount of people living before and those living now would make it likely that most of the people they "treat" would NOT have had a past life, but that never seems to be the case. And, always, at least one of the individual's past lives was as somebody famous, again something the odds would be against. Why then, is this always the case? Oh, that's right, because the whole thing is BS.
Oh, and let me ask you this. If someone opens fire on a group of people killing some and wounding others, what would you call that? I ask this because right after the BHBB's ridiculous interview, she mentioned the stories (and, really, if there's ever a time where that is the appropriate word for news, it's when it's something on FOX) was going to be about how President Obama won't use the word terrorism in reference to the shooting of U.S. airmen in Germany. We've heard this before from them. Obama never uses the word terrorism (which isn't true) and of course, this means he is really on the side of the terrorists (at least, that's what FOX tries to imply). You know, I don't watch FOX "News" that much, so maybe I missed it when they covered the story on TV, but I did a search on their website using quite a few combinations of "Arizona" and "terrorism" or "terorrist". Based on the results I got, it doesn't seem that they referred to the shootings in Arizona as terrorism even though it was very similar to what happened in Germany. Hmmm, why would that be? Maybe this table will help :
Germany shootings Arizona shootings
Lone gunman Lone gunman
Attack on U.S. citizens in public Attack on U.S. citizens in public
Multiple deaths Multiple deaths
Shooter was not a U.S. citizen Shooter was a U.S. citizen
Shooter influenced by violent Shooter influenced by violent
rhetoric of Islamic extremists rhetoric of right wing politicians
given airtime on FOX
Gee, what are the differences that might be causing them to label one as a terrorist attack and not the other? As I said, I could be wrong. Maybe when the Arizona shootings happened, they reported it as a terrorist attack and they just don't refer to it as such on their website, right? Yeah....right.
FOX "News", the gift that keeps on giving.