O'Reilly
By Peter - Posted on September 28th, 2007
Dudes - a colleague just gave me a book by Bill O'Reilly this past week: "Culture Warrior". Being uncabled, i didn't know the guy was a major news anchor on Fox - didn't know of his existence, in fact.
are you guys familiar with him? what are your opinions? he seems to be an odd combination of gasbag and hero. in some aspects i was astounded how perceptive he was (effects of entitlement mentality, for instance), in other respects i was dismayed ("of course the U.S. is the center of the universe").
how real is that guy?
opinions?
pmm
Login to post comments
PM,
I watch O'Reilly most nights. I have read his book, "Culture Warrior". If you have read his book you will find that while he is a bit overly caught up in the behavior of the news media (this is his profession) he is trying to provide a voice to the "Traditionalists".
He defines "Traditionalists" as those people who would prefer, for example:
1. Marriage be defined between a man and a woman.
2. Stopping the secular-progressive sterilization of our culture (e.g., today's announcement by an Illinois school that Halloween will be called "Fall Festival", Christmas will be called "Winter Festival", but we will observe Ramadan explicitly.)
3. Working to deport criminal illegal aliens.
4. Working against states that have legally mandated that underaged daughters do not have to inform their parents of abortions or abortion plans.
5. Fighting against the perception that the US is harmful to the world. (When, in fact, US Govt. and citizens contribute more to charity acting in other nations than any other country.)
6. Working for the capture and incarceration of sex offenders and those who abuse children.
Personally, I like Bill O'Reilly, I have joined his "Premium Member" fan club ($49 - all proceeds go to charity). At the same time, he misses the boat occasionally on some issues - no one is perfect - but his perspective is really refreshing after watching the bleeding-liberal news for 40 years.
Bill has the highest rated (no. of viewers) on news TV.
JS
re # 5 above, I was surprised to learn that despite being at the top in terms of total aid, the US is near the bottom among the developed countries in terms of aid as a % of GNP: Wikipedia link
Interesting, Wikipedia gives that at $20B but this site puts total US giving at $212B (2001) (I think this is more like 3% of GDP ?).
I think our ranking is understated, it's not just the govt that gives.
FYI,
JS
craig blomberg writes in "neither poverty nor riches": (typed blindly so don't complain of typos)
"..Given all these alarming and discouraging trends, it is astonishing ot se what Westerners spend their money on . A survey of expenditures in the late 1980s and early 1990s demonstrated that americans spent annually twice as much on cut flowers as on overseas protestant ministries, twice as much on women's sheer hosiery, one and a half times as much on video games, ....about five times as much on pets....approximately seven times as much on sweets,...and a staggering 140 times as much on legalized gambling activities. and in 1995 worldwide expenditures for advertising, designed largely to convice us that all of these and similar items are necessities, amounted to $385 billion. .. Meanwhile, the amount of american giving to charitable organizations of all kinds remains reliatively constant at somewhere between 1.6% and 2.16% of a family's income. American Christians do only slightly better, averaging somewhere around 2.4% of the national per capita income. ...As for our governments, the US ranks last among the eighteen major Western donors of foreign aid in terms of percentage of GNP, while the UK comes in twelfth."
PM,
Nice data. I think there are two points here. 1) I propose that those who bash the US should consider that we give more to the world than many other nations have given or are simply able to give, 2) However, as your Blomberg note implies, the culture is also sick with materialism.
I propose that we, as Americans, shouldn't demonize ourselves as we do give a great deal back to the world. At the same time, we should recognize that it is easier for a camel to enter the narrow gate (small door called "eye of the needle") than for a rich man to enter heaven. We must change the consumerism in exchange for asceticism. It is going to be tough to do this, however, from a secular perspective. One has to have heaven in mind - it seems. The less we orient toward God the more we orient toward materialism.
This is, in part, why I support O'Reilly. He is attempting to preserve traditional values (faith and morals) in a culture that is in decline. It is interesting to go back and read Cicero, it's like reading the daily newspaper - same stuff happening all over again. . .
How do we not repeat history when no one reads?
js
I think it's not the government's jobs to be charitable - that's for the people. i'd rather be charitable myself than have someone take my money away and be charitable in my name.
so, if the U.S. gov't spends *nothing* on charity, then more power to it. if the people refuse to be charitable, that is a different matter. seems like blomberg's saying the people aren't picking up the slack. i'm just stunned that they hardly pick up anything at all... or do they?
btw: i am pretty sure european private citizens are just as bad in that respect - probably worse - than u.s. citizens. at least from my own experience.
This opinion piece in the LA Times may help explain why in charitable giving the US appears to be simultaeously at the top and near the bottom depending on how you look at it.
Is Harvard a charity?
Most donations go to institutions that serve the rich; they shouldn't be fully tax-deductible.
By Robert B. Reich
link