While reading 'Culture Warrior', i've found myself seriously questioning O'Reilly's stance on a lot of things. When listening to Bill on TV and reading his poorly constructed prose, you've got to ask yourself if he really believes in the words that he drools out day after day. What is he like in his personal life? Does he treat his family the way that he treats his co-workers or his guests on his shows? Has his life been shaped by his upbringing, his family, his education; or is this all just a persona he adopted to satiate his masters, Rupert Murdock and Roger Ailes? Bill likes to call the 'secular progressive' crowd 'selfish'. But, something tells me that Bill isn't exactly ready to share his toys with the rest of the kids on the playground.
Recently, Bill used the case of Andrew Speaker ( the TB guy ) to take issue with the 'secular progressives:
"Traditional values people put others on a par with themselves. That’s the Judeo-Christian tenet. Love your neighbor as yourself. Secular Progressives put themselves above all others. That philosophy says "Me first, then I’ll worry about you." As a nation, the U.S.A. has been successful embracing the traditional point of view, but today, that’s being challenged and this TB case is a great example."
So, here's a challenge for you. Since Bill is attempting to make us believe that he is a 'traditionalist', and he is also claiming that those with 'traditional values' put others on the same playing field, try and find one instance where he give a person with an opposing viewpoint the same courtesy that he gives those who agree with him on everything.
Bill is trying to convince the reader that he isn't 'selfish', that he would put other's needs before his own. I think there would be a better chance of Alan Colmes leaping across the desk and cross-checking Sean Hannity one Friday night.
Where's Mine
Bill makes a casual reference to one of the first mottos of the United States: E pluribus unum
Then, in classic O'Reilly fashion, makes a lame joke about the name of the man that put forth the idea of our first motto, Pierre Eugene Du Simitiere. He was French, so, you can pretty much guess what Bill thinks of him.
It was clear where O'Reilly was going to go from here.
His primary argument is that the 'secular progressives' are attempting to bring about an 'entitlement' society where everyone gets hand-outs. He uses the same tired arguments that he wouldn't give things to drug-abusers, people that abuse 'welfare', etc etc, ramble ramble.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
The United States is no stranger to various 'entitlements'. Here's a few examples.
( the big three )
Social Security
Medicare
Medicad
( as well as )
Welfare
Student Grants
Veterans Benefits
Unemployment
Earned Income Credit
Instead of waxing like a paranoid delusional, perhaps Bill should consider the effects that his generation is having on the these same entitlements for my generation, and our children, and grandchildren. Simply posing bizarre 'what if' senerios doesn't help to correct current problems that the entitlements of today have.
------
In an interview with 60 Minutes, David Walker, Comptroller General at the Government Accountability Office, stated that the Medicare prescription drug bill, passed by Congress at the end of 2003 was:
...probably the most fiscally irresponsible piece of legislation since the 1960s.
The figures stating that the new Medicare program would cost around $400 billion dollars in the first ten years were slightly off, as the real cost will be more than double that amount. So, not only is Social Security going to have to be addressed, you'll have to add Medicare into that equation as well.
Figures from the National Taxpayers Union state that:
Medicare will consume nearly 40% of the nation’s GDP after several decades because of the new drug benefit. That’s not 40% of federal revenues, or 40% of federal spending, but rather 40 % of the nation’s entire private sector output
Take a look at this letter from the Congressional Budget Office.
----------------------------------------------------------------
In O'Reilly's warped view of the world ( particularly the US ) he seems to think that this imaginary group of 'secular progressives' are expecting everything handed to them for free. However, one has to but take a glance at what some of us grew up with, particularly those born between 1979 and 1992.
This group of people, often referred to as the 'The Entitlement Generation' or the 'Millenium Generation', have grown up around a world that has embraced technology and they've used that to their advantage. They are motivated by dreams that are more attainable. This generation is truly 'hard-wired'. The ability to stay in constant movment with the fluctuations of the world ( in all aspects ) has allowed this group of people to bring something unique to the work-force.
Where-as a goal of someone born in the late 50s or early 60s may have been to build their own home by age 30, a person born around 1989 might want to create the next 'YouTube' or 'MySpace' and be a multi-millionaire before they're 25. Both goals can and have been proven to be attainable, but, Bill somehow thinks that the latter group of people, those with knowledge ( not only of technology, but spanning all elements of the world ) far-and-above what the previous generations had garnered at an early age, are 'selfish' in their desires.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
O'Reilly once claimed that the Bush administration had done more to help those in impoverished areas of the US than Bill Clinton had. This statement came amongst that clamour of Republican pundits' attempts to draw attention away from the massive missteps of the Bush administrations's reaction to Hurricane Katrina.
We've all heard what O'Reilly has said about the poor.
Even after all this, Bill tries to have it both ways, and claims that he makes donations to The Doe Fund.
Bill has railed against certain Vermont judges and how they practice 'restorative' justice. That is, a form of justice that allows people that commit a crime to be reacclimated into society through training and often therapy. According to Doe's website, it seems that they are part of that 'restorative' process.
------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill also blames the riots in France in 2005 to 'entitlements':
"Being a socialist society, France has provided its new citizens with the usual entitlements, including housing, health benefits, and welfare, but there are few jobs in the French economy, which has been stagnant for years. So millions of immigrants are unemployed, feel disenfranchised, and hate their adopted country. And it gets worse. The insurgent Muslims apparently believe they can do whatever they want because Chirac is so weak in the face of the provocation, they're pretty much correct. As I said, Chirac won't even use the military to protect lives and property."
Marie Therese of Newshounds had this to say about O'Reilly's assertions:
General unemployment in France is running at approximately 10.1%, which is a large number. In France unemployment among the under-30's in the Muslim communities is clocking in at somewhere around 50%, a staggering figure, reminiscent of similar numbers in the black communities in post-WWII America. During the Great Depression, America experienced 25% unemployment. It turned out to be a time of great turmoil including the rise of the organized crime, riots in the street, bread lines, weather abberations, massive movements of agricultural populations to the California coast, etc.
While this was not mentioned by O'Reilly in the book, the people engaged in the riots were primarily of Muslim heritage.
Here's some detailed info on the events that sparked the riots and how the event unfolded.
------------------------------------------------------
While pinning down some info for this portion of the blog-seris, i found this bizzare bit of nonsense from Bill that equated 'entitlements' with the Canadians not winning very many gold medals in the 2004 Olympics:
In 2004, The Factor observed that 'self-reliant' Australia was winning a lot of Olympic medals in Athens and that 'socialistic' Canada was not. This was, he said, clear demonstration that 'entitlement culture' is 'a force against self-discipline and motivation.'
Huh?!?!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill makes mention about half-way through the chapter that he sees the 'Estate Tax' as proof positive that we are on the way towards a 'socialist' form of taxation.
Some people refer to this as the 'Death Tax':
The term was popularized in a famous memorandum written by Republican pollster Frank Luntz. He recommended that the party use the term "death tax" when referring to the estate tax, writing that the term "death tax" "kindled voter resentment in a way that 'inheritance tax' and 'estate tax' do not".
-- Linguist, author, and political activist George Lakoff states that the phrase is a deliberate and carefully calculated neologism which is used as propaganda to aid in the removal of estate taxes.
( And it seems to have worked )
-- As of 2006, according to IRS estimates, Estate Tax lawyers 'uncovered' approximately 1.5 billion dollars a year that people 'owed' the U.S. government.
-- However, after 2006, the IRS has let got somewhere around 1/2 of the Estate Tax lawyers, because "far fewer people were obligated to pay estate taxes than in the past."
Why is this worth mentioning? Well, considering that Bill has postulated that the Estate ( Death ) Tax is just redistribution under "stealth wording", and that he brags of making 'millions' each year by doing radio, TV, and writing, he seems more interested in "protecting his prop-ur-tee" rather than posing legitimate questions about taxation. Where, in fact, does the money that is appropriated from the Estate Tax go? Does Bill think about this? Does it go anywhere? Do you know?
------------------------------------------------------------
With this chapter, just as with the others, O'Reilly feeds his loyal sheep with fear and conjecture, knowing full well that they will obey his every command.
One portion of the chapter did strike me as odd. In it, Bill claimed that 'secular progressives' don't believe that 'evil' truly exists. Well, if you have spent enough time watching Fox'News', then you know that they are more than willing to paint the evil deeds of the George Bush and his administration as white as snow.
How can one confront 'evil' abroad, if you can't even see the 'evil' at home?
--------------------------------------------------------------
......to be continued