Rosie O'Donnell, one of my favorite method actors of all time, made the claim on her blog (devoid of any puncuation, grammar, or the capitalization that people with intelligence substructures tend to use) that after mentioning Bill O'Reilly's lawsuit from 2004 on The View, she was told that they couldn't bring it up anymore.

She failed to say who told her this. Was it the producer? An ABC executive? The clerk handing her a half-dozen special at Fatburger? She also accused O'Reilly of editing her statements to make them into something they weren't, as if screaming over everyone around you that the British sent their soldiers to Iran to be prisoners on purpose can be taken in some other way. This coming from someone who doesn't know the difference between a judge and an attorney.

What Rosie probably can't comprehend is that nobody knows what really happened with Andrea Mackris, (it wouldn't be the first time someone without a case was paid off to keep from having to fight the bad PR.) But if they let her open it up to conjecture that is wrong (Rosie woudn't do that, would she?) ABC will end up in court for slander.

In what must have been a huge mental stretch for Rosie, she tried to compare O'Reilly's use of her clips with George Orwell's 1984, writing:

"Has it ever occurred to your, Winston, that by the year 2050, at the very latest, not a single human being will be alive who could understand such a conversation as we are having now?… In fact, there will be no thought, as we understand it now. Orthodoxy means not thinking—not needing to think.

Rosie, I don't understand what the hell you're talking about now.