Critique of Bill O'Reilly's Book:
Who's Looking Out For You?
Who's Looking Out For You?
This is an important critique of an important ‘News Showman’s’ effort to rise above stardom and keep his feet on the ground. Bill O’Reilly, outspoken, and critical of untruth, is nonetheless subject to error and ingrained perspective. This author is anxious to give O’Reilly a fair critique.
Basking in the No Spin Zone, Bill O’Reilly alerts us to Who’s Looking Out For You? And within Introduction, he brings readers to a rather profound and ubiquitous observation, accusing propensity outside the golden circle: ”Self-delusions can negate even the best advice and most accurate observations.” En garde! Let us proceed!
Outside an obligation to follow Bill O’Reilly’s own ‘tell-it-like-it-is’ philosophy, Ben Winter has great admiration for O’Reilly’s style and effort to present a ‘truth-in-evidence’ programming format. One could hardly accuse the Fox News Showman of dodging debates with the ‘bad guys’ profiled in exposition--many so politically or objectively prejudiced as to appear shallow in their response to hard interrogatives. Our hat is off to you Bill O’Reilly--and we like you here at our house--but you do not get away scot-free.
Regarding your caution against bad advice or unsavory companionship from “a ship of fools” reference, this author is reminded of his own literary endeavor and would excerpt the last verse from a preface poem in THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified. “O ship of fools had you embarked, And set a sane more resolute course, A ship of fools you might remain, But safe ashore without remorse.” In this regard, we agree with and repeat your quote of the indomitable George Washington; “associate yourself with men of quality if you esteem your own reputation, for ‘tis better to be alone than in bad company.” Good advice!
But when you give RFK credit on page 70 as champion of the little guy (minority vote) and all around “Who’s Looking Out For You?” champion, you stretch credibility pretty thin: “RFK brought down hundreds of wise guys, including the fearsome and corrupt labor boss Jimmy Hoffa.” Hello! Was not Jimmy Hoffa brought down by his own gangster clan—with a set of cement shoes—and which gang still operates with impunity and in full cooperation with the righteous Mayor, former Mayor, and wondrous woman Senator from New York? Why was Old Man Kennedy so adamantly set on a Presidential son? And why did Attorney General Kennedy pursue the Mob with such vengeance but little lasting benefit? Was it payback time?
On page 76 you mention ‘cultural assimilation’ as a cause for regressive tones in civilized conduct:‘It is not uncommon for a fifth-grade boy to call a female classmate a “bitch” or a “ho” {whore).’ Yet, all ‘minority apologists’ share the political podium with escapism rhetoric. Of course, political correctness is ‘cool.’ Flip the page forward and you castigate “‘The New York Times,’ the ‘Washington Post’, and the news divisions at NPR, PBS, NBC, ABC, CBS, and many other outfits . . . scared stiff of engaging in the cultural battles that are being waged for the hearts and minds of American children. Sorry O’Reilly, O’Reilly Factor, and FSN, I did not read any hard-hitting text addressing the problem now escalated in the wake of succeeding vote-hungry politicizations, and which will continue to escalate. This critique author understands the political expedience underlying public indoctrination and commercial efficacy—as you do. And, you do a good job despite the handicaps—but Jimmy Hoffa brought to heel by Robert Kennedy? You must also believe in Santa Claus. Bah humbug!
O’Reilly’s Bill Moyers portrait is right on target! Moyers often shoots himself in the foot, and the newspaper quote epitomizes Moyers’ narrow view and his ideologue denials but inherency: “We [PBS] are not ideologues. Ideologues look at the world in a certain way and try to shape everything to fit that view of the world. I take my opinion and my view from the world as I find it.” Ben Winter adds: Bill Moyers fools his own narcissistic self; he soft-pedals Islam culture, enjoys conservative castigation, wallows in Democratic tom-foolery, revels in anything anti-establishment—and he always slants questions toward the ideologue favorable to his own narrow viewpoint.
Gingerly, with tongue-in-cheek, Bill O’Reilly is careful to tread the Religion road on tiptoes. Careful Bill, nothing is worth nothing! With incongruous, but typical Roman Catholic commitment, he equates monotheism with “beautiful sculptures and stained glass windows and a 2,000-year-old tradition that makes sense.” Islam does the same thing in architecture and the ‘black stone.’” While you advise Qur’an perusal to be unnecessary for terrorism understanding and intimate the Qur’an text benign, tell us Bill O’Reilly, where does your scandal-ridden religion differ from Muslim scandal-ridden religion? Not one iota! Evidentially, supported by laypeople, clerics in both disciplines prey on youth! From your writing, like Bill Moyers, you know little about neither your chosen religion’s incentive nor Islam’s religion incentive, thus placing susceptibles at survival risk. All Bills, and other pseudo-religionists, are ignorant of the most important question facing mankind. Thus, I do not selectively criticize the two Bills; however, Bill, tell me what you know about ‘Ten Ages’ as a limit to the monotheism existentialism in evidence! Your answer, which I will never hear, will determine the depth of your knowledge, not your intelligence; they are two different things. Frankly, I do not care other than to make the point; I would only hope either Bill might intercept this critique and reflect on a less than perfect religious experience and an understanding so lightly considered as an intangible safety net. I know: you believe, this and that, . . . . . et cetera!
Concerning secularism’s rise, we quote Bill’s caveat: “a philosophy that argues there is no room for spirituality in the public arena, . . . from the intolerant secularists who hold power in many different quarters.” Perhaps secularity’s role should be defined. Is everything outside Roman Catholicism secular? Which must we assign to the non-secular definition: Judaism, Catholicism and other Sectarian monotheisms, or Islam? They are all monotheistic. Logically, we can determine each to be opposed to the other two—that is, if we understand monotheism rules and opposing disciplines. Which two are secular? A statement of belief will not suffice; a good syllogism would be apropos. Please, “Just the facts, ma’am.”
Of the three monotheisms, all are alive and well—but which can surpass its legal-historical non sequitur? After all, anaclisis is the crutch used by all three, including camel drivers, the rich, the destitute, and even Fox News principals. Even so, Immanuel Kant said it was okay: “No man has the intellect to deny another man’s God.” But Kant’s conclusion was not entirely correct, modernly; outdated as it were and as it pertains to popular conception, he spoke of ideation not the manifestation of real or tongue-in-cheek omnipotence.
How can Benjamin Franklin (page 116) look down from ‘heaven’ as constituted in his 1787 remarks to the Constitutional Convention: ‘. . . imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, . . .? But you are right, O’Reilly; “Either a society has morals or it turns into the Mongol hordes.” But just to keep the record straight, for Benjamin or Bill, John saw heaven descending to earth (at least below the mountain top)—not rising into fantasyland!
Your advice on political philosophy and discipline is to think logically (page 157): “Facts look out for you. And that’s a fact.” But many facts devolve to relative truth. And Ben Winter would ask for fact qualification. Surely it is a perception not susceptible to relative truth. On page 177, speaking of racial hustlers ‘who has accumulated power by blaming the white man for everything,’ we approach the truth in America discontent. “A desperate population is vulnerable to exploitation by them (racial hustlers).” No less vulnerable is the majority young, slowly demoralized by an invasive culture promulgated by plagiarist fools immersed in an inherent folly. The die is cast, and there can be no turning back from the total corruption and moral decay festered in our cultural revolution.
Let us turn back to page 134, Bill O’Reilly. Much as I admire your hard-hitting journalism format, you should limit your articulation to those things well researched and topics with which you are familiar. Even a voice of reason becomes unreasonable outside its expertise. You had the audacity to brag: ‘. . . we rejected the argument that reading the Koran book would help us get to know the world that the 9/11 killers inhabited. Number one, I don’t think the revelations of the Prophet Muhammad have anything to do with homicide and terrorism. And second, I reject the argument that you have to digest a book of poetry and religious interpretation in order to “know” your enemy.’ That tragic statement should earn you the dumb award for all time! The Qur’an resembles a book of poetry and peace about like the Mafia manifesto and should be accepted only by apologists propagandizing their inherited psychosis. I suggest you read Qur’an Suras 5.33, 9.5 - .29, 33.61, and 47.4—just for starters—each is contextually slanted to encourage infidel murder! Qur’an Suras (Chapters) are talking about you Bill O’Reilly and 260 million other Americans by association. And dummy US, UK, French, German, UN Conspirators, and other government entities harbor these rats even while acknowledging themselves also on the hit list. William Jefferson Clinton and his like-minded, traitorous wife, actually sided with the Islam conspiracy against Yugoslavia sovereignty and received public adulation for their nefarious and subversive endeavor. Of course, it took the heat off other scandalous behavior! (Slobodan Milosevic reprisals might be equated with Israel resistance.) And when celebrity ordained Bill O’Reillys commiserate Islam comeuppance, they enrich Qur’an poison to our enemy’s glee—including the 7 million Qur’an devotees resident in our midst—and including seditious blacks or whites who adopt Muslim nom de guerre designates. No heroes here, only enemies!
As Gomer Pyle would say: “Shame, shame-shame, shame, shame”!
Bill, your continuing apologetic for black propensity on page 186 and encouragement for the masses to reject false prophets, racial instigators, and phony patronizers is well taken. (patronizers is not regular, however.) But you missed the deterioration syndrome existing below your elevated safety seat. Inevitability stalks with ignorance and resistance to morality, disdain for philosophical ethics and ethos, shunning of education, partisan politics, and wise-guy patronage at the U.S. feed trough.
Who’s Looking Out For You concludes with Bill O’Reilly’s promise to let the chips fall where they may as he iconoclastically battles the system and champions rights for the underdog. A noble endeavor indeed, and articulated in Bill’s inimitable and unvarnished style. He boasts: “That style is not for everyone, but, in its own way, cutting through the fog is a noble endeavor.” We cannot accuse Bill O’Reilly of modest!
We end our critique and urge Bill O’Reilly to continue his crusade against injustice and ignorance—and at the same time, learn something about the Qur’an incentives so blatantly published for readers at elementary school reading levels and which is neither poetry nor religious interpretation.
Basking in the No Spin Zone, Bill O’Reilly alerts us to Who’s Looking Out For You? And within Introduction, he brings readers to a rather profound and ubiquitous observation, accusing propensity outside the golden circle: ”Self-delusions can negate even the best advice and most accurate observations.” En garde! Let us proceed!
Outside an obligation to follow Bill O’Reilly’s own ‘tell-it-like-it-is’ philosophy, Ben Winter has great admiration for O’Reilly’s style and effort to present a ‘truth-in-evidence’ programming format. One could hardly accuse the Fox News Showman of dodging debates with the ‘bad guys’ profiled in exposition--many so politically or objectively prejudiced as to appear shallow in their response to hard interrogatives. Our hat is off to you Bill O’Reilly--and we like you here at our house--but you do not get away scot-free.
Regarding your caution against bad advice or unsavory companionship from “a ship of fools” reference, this author is reminded of his own literary endeavor and would excerpt the last verse from a preface poem in THE GREAT DECEPTION: Symbols And Numbers Clarified. “O ship of fools had you embarked, And set a sane more resolute course, A ship of fools you might remain, But safe ashore without remorse.” In this regard, we agree with and repeat your quote of the indomitable George Washington; “associate yourself with men of quality if you esteem your own reputation, for ‘tis better to be alone than in bad company.” Good advice!
But when you give RFK credit on page 70 as champion of the little guy (minority vote) and all around “Who’s Looking Out For You?” champion, you stretch credibility pretty thin: “RFK brought down hundreds of wise guys, including the fearsome and corrupt labor boss Jimmy Hoffa.” Hello! Was not Jimmy Hoffa brought down by his own gangster clan—with a set of cement shoes—and which gang still operates with impunity and in full cooperation with the righteous Mayor, former Mayor, and wondrous woman Senator from New York? Why was Old Man Kennedy so adamantly set on a Presidential son? And why did Attorney General Kennedy pursue the Mob with such vengeance but little lasting benefit? Was it payback time?
On page 76 you mention ‘cultural assimilation’ as a cause for regressive tones in civilized conduct:‘It is not uncommon for a fifth-grade boy to call a female classmate a “bitch” or a “ho” {whore).’ Yet, all ‘minority apologists’ share the political podium with escapism rhetoric. Of course, political correctness is ‘cool.’ Flip the page forward and you castigate “‘The New York Times,’ the ‘Washington Post’, and the news divisions at NPR, PBS, NBC, ABC, CBS, and many other outfits . . . scared stiff of engaging in the cultural battles that are being waged for the hearts and minds of American children. Sorry O’Reilly, O’Reilly Factor, and FSN, I did not read any hard-hitting text addressing the problem now escalated in the wake of succeeding vote-hungry politicizations, and which will continue to escalate. This critique author understands the political expedience underlying public indoctrination and commercial efficacy—as you do. And, you do a good job despite the handicaps—but Jimmy Hoffa brought to heel by Robert Kennedy? You must also believe in Santa Claus. Bah humbug!
O’Reilly’s Bill Moyers portrait is right on target! Moyers often shoots himself in the foot, and the newspaper quote epitomizes Moyers’ narrow view and his ideologue denials but inherency: “We [PBS] are not ideologues. Ideologues look at the world in a certain way and try to shape everything to fit that view of the world. I take my opinion and my view from the world as I find it.” Ben Winter adds: Bill Moyers fools his own narcissistic self; he soft-pedals Islam culture, enjoys conservative castigation, wallows in Democratic tom-foolery, revels in anything anti-establishment—and he always slants questions toward the ideologue favorable to his own narrow viewpoint.
Gingerly, with tongue-in-cheek, Bill O’Reilly is careful to tread the Religion road on tiptoes. Careful Bill, nothing is worth nothing! With incongruous, but typical Roman Catholic commitment, he equates monotheism with “beautiful sculptures and stained glass windows and a 2,000-year-old tradition that makes sense.” Islam does the same thing in architecture and the ‘black stone.’” While you advise Qur’an perusal to be unnecessary for terrorism understanding and intimate the Qur’an text benign, tell us Bill O’Reilly, where does your scandal-ridden religion differ from Muslim scandal-ridden religion? Not one iota! Evidentially, supported by laypeople, clerics in both disciplines prey on youth! From your writing, like Bill Moyers, you know little about neither your chosen religion’s incentive nor Islam’s religion incentive, thus placing susceptibles at survival risk. All Bills, and other pseudo-religionists, are ignorant of the most important question facing mankind. Thus, I do not selectively criticize the two Bills; however, Bill, tell me what you know about ‘Ten Ages’ as a limit to the monotheism existentialism in evidence! Your answer, which I will never hear, will determine the depth of your knowledge, not your intelligence; they are two different things. Frankly, I do not care other than to make the point; I would only hope either Bill might intercept this critique and reflect on a less than perfect religious experience and an understanding so lightly considered as an intangible safety net. I know: you believe, this and that, . . . . . et cetera!
Concerning secularism’s rise, we quote Bill’s caveat: “a philosophy that argues there is no room for spirituality in the public arena, . . . from the intolerant secularists who hold power in many different quarters.” Perhaps secularity’s role should be defined. Is everything outside Roman Catholicism secular? Which must we assign to the non-secular definition: Judaism, Catholicism and other Sectarian monotheisms, or Islam? They are all monotheistic. Logically, we can determine each to be opposed to the other two—that is, if we understand monotheism rules and opposing disciplines. Which two are secular? A statement of belief will not suffice; a good syllogism would be apropos. Please, “Just the facts, ma’am.”
Of the three monotheisms, all are alive and well—but which can surpass its legal-historical non sequitur? After all, anaclisis is the crutch used by all three, including camel drivers, the rich, the destitute, and even Fox News principals. Even so, Immanuel Kant said it was okay: “No man has the intellect to deny another man’s God.” But Kant’s conclusion was not entirely correct, modernly; outdated as it were and as it pertains to popular conception, he spoke of ideation not the manifestation of real or tongue-in-cheek omnipotence.
How can Benjamin Franklin (page 116) look down from ‘heaven’ as constituted in his 1787 remarks to the Constitutional Convention: ‘. . . imploring the assistance of Heaven and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, . . .? But you are right, O’Reilly; “Either a society has morals or it turns into the Mongol hordes.” But just to keep the record straight, for Benjamin or Bill, John saw heaven descending to earth (at least below the mountain top)—not rising into fantasyland!
Your advice on political philosophy and discipline is to think logically (page 157): “Facts look out for you. And that’s a fact.” But many facts devolve to relative truth. And Ben Winter would ask for fact qualification. Surely it is a perception not susceptible to relative truth. On page 177, speaking of racial hustlers ‘who has accumulated power by blaming the white man for everything,’ we approach the truth in America discontent. “A desperate population is vulnerable to exploitation by them (racial hustlers).” No less vulnerable is the majority young, slowly demoralized by an invasive culture promulgated by plagiarist fools immersed in an inherent folly. The die is cast, and there can be no turning back from the total corruption and moral decay festered in our cultural revolution.
Let us turn back to page 134, Bill O’Reilly. Much as I admire your hard-hitting journalism format, you should limit your articulation to those things well researched and topics with which you are familiar. Even a voice of reason becomes unreasonable outside its expertise. You had the audacity to brag: ‘. . . we rejected the argument that reading the Koran book would help us get to know the world that the 9/11 killers inhabited. Number one, I don’t think the revelations of the Prophet Muhammad have anything to do with homicide and terrorism. And second, I reject the argument that you have to digest a book of poetry and religious interpretation in order to “know” your enemy.’ That tragic statement should earn you the dumb award for all time! The Qur’an resembles a book of poetry and peace about like the Mafia manifesto and should be accepted only by apologists propagandizing their inherited psychosis. I suggest you read Qur’an Suras 5.33, 9.5 - .29, 33.61, and 47.4—just for starters—each is contextually slanted to encourage infidel murder! Qur’an Suras (Chapters) are talking about you Bill O’Reilly and 260 million other Americans by association. And dummy US, UK, French, German, UN Conspirators, and other government entities harbor these rats even while acknowledging themselves also on the hit list. William Jefferson Clinton and his like-minded, traitorous wife, actually sided with the Islam conspiracy against Yugoslavia sovereignty and received public adulation for their nefarious and subversive endeavor. Of course, it took the heat off other scandalous behavior! (Slobodan Milosevic reprisals might be equated with Israel resistance.) And when celebrity ordained Bill O’Reillys commiserate Islam comeuppance, they enrich Qur’an poison to our enemy’s glee—including the 7 million Qur’an devotees resident in our midst—and including seditious blacks or whites who adopt Muslim nom de guerre designates. No heroes here, only enemies!
As Gomer Pyle would say: “Shame, shame-shame, shame, shame”!
Bill, your continuing apologetic for black propensity on page 186 and encouragement for the masses to reject false prophets, racial instigators, and phony patronizers is well taken. (patronizers is not regular, however.) But you missed the deterioration syndrome existing below your elevated safety seat. Inevitability stalks with ignorance and resistance to morality, disdain for philosophical ethics and ethos, shunning of education, partisan politics, and wise-guy patronage at the U.S. feed trough.
Who’s Looking Out For You concludes with Bill O’Reilly’s promise to let the chips fall where they may as he iconoclastically battles the system and champions rights for the underdog. A noble endeavor indeed, and articulated in Bill’s inimitable and unvarnished style. He boasts: “That style is not for everyone, but, in its own way, cutting through the fog is a noble endeavor.” We cannot accuse Bill O’Reilly of modest!
We end our critique and urge Bill O’Reilly to continue his crusade against injustice and ignorance—and at the same time, learn something about the Qur’an incentives so blatantly published for readers at elementary school reading levels and which is neither poetry nor religious interpretation.
===w===
RSS Feed