I used this expression for the hope of attracting curiosity seekers, who might think I have a death wish or something of that nature.
Actually I believe most women are smart…at least smarter than men. The ones I knew in grade school were usually the best students.
Of the top 10 I think only lifelong friend, Bobby Valentino and maybe one other guy cracked that starting line-up.
However over the course of my life, I have noticed that something happens to many of them as they turn 15.
My observation reminds me of one of my favorite stories.
This guy is on his knees and he is praying to God:
Dear God, I want to thank you for making women sooo beautiful and sexy.
I want to thank you make them so soft and cuddly…but I have to ask you one thing:
Why did you have to make them so dumb?
A deep voice comes from behind the altar:
So they would like YOU!
That would even be funnier if it did not have serious applications for today’s women.
A lot has changed since I formed my understanding of the fair sex–and very little of it any good.
I think there is a deep strain of ignorance, stupidity or false pride that has permeated much of the feminine side of American culture.
I have always believed that women were the keepers and protectors of the culture.
The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world, is a vital truism that we seem to have discarded in the pangs of our own self-destruction. And their view from the pedestal had fewer obstructions.
The problem seems to stem from the women’s movement.
I do not mean the suffragettes or the Bloomer Girls of the early 20th century, who fought for the 19th Amendment, which gave women their right to vote.
No, I mean the feminist movement of radicals Betty Friedan and Gloria Steinem, who coined the non-sequitur, a woman needs a men like a fish needs a bicycle.
Their movement is best described as a cold-hearted conspiracy to destroy true feminism and alienate women, not only from their families but from their own bodies.
Professor Jacques Barzun once said to understand America, one must know baseball.
I say to understand women, one must read Gramsci–Antonio Gramsci, the Sardinian founder of the Italian Communist party.
Gramsci, who wrote most of his important stuff while in prison, said that the best way to destroy the West–that is Western Civilization— is through its women.
He observed that Italian women were hermetically attached to their Catholic faith and the only way to foment a long march through their culture was to separate them from their faith.
And the best way to that was through sex.
This idea was adopted by the Marxist Frankfurt Institute for Social Research, a group of sociologists and think-tankers, who left Germany just before the onset of the pogroms and the death camps.
Many emigrated to the United States where they joined university faculties.
The most prominent was Herbert Marcuse whose gave us the best quote of the 1960s, make love, not war!
His star pupil and Marxist operative was Mrs. Friedan.
It was her book, The Feminine Mystique that launched a million divorces.
She sold women on the idea that they must compete with their husbands in order to have self-esteem.
Of course men had one very important weapon–they could impregnate their wives to keep them down on the suburban farm.
There was a movie, I saw in 1964 with Polly Bergen as the heroine who was just about to be elected president of the United States when she had to announce to the country that she was pregnant.It was her unborn baby that had prevented her from being the Hillary Clinton of her generation.
Their wombs now became the greatest obstacle to their new quest for power.
Advance forward to 1973 and Roe v. Wade when seven men on the Supreme Court found the mysterious right in the clouds of constitutional law that gave women the right (privilege) to eliminate the little interlopers who would thwart their wills to surpass men in their boardrooms.
They were promised that they could, not only cleanse their wombs of an inconvenient child without a word from the father or a stain of guilt, but also find existential validation in the process.
This was the message of the New Feminists and millions of women bought it…and Western Civilization has paid a steep price for it ever since.
The feminist movement also caused men to delay marriage or just shack-up with their liberated girlfriends, much to the harm of marriage stability.
Don’t get me started on their trophy wives.
Who is behind this historic change in women’s relation to their own culture?
Why men of course!
Alfred Kinsey started it all with his book on sex but it was one of his early fans–Hugh Hefner who launched a magazine empire based on the pristine naked flesh of the girl next door that gave it momentum and longevity.
Hefner was a genius who not only legitimized prurient materials but gave us a cultural icon, the sterile bunny…one of the most profound oxymorons from the 1950s.
Hef’s women were gorgeous and desirable, not unlike the object of affection in the joke above, but they were designed only for pleasure and not the reproductive responsibilities of the family.
My question then is this what smart women do?
Has it really been worth to them, given the unintended consequences of more frequent divorce, irresponsible men, rebellious and sexually active children as young as 10-11, rampant STDs, and epidemic sterility?
I saw a line of combat soldiers walking a patrol in Afghanistan on the front page of the New York Times. At least two of them are women. The Times also had an article about service women, with missing limbs.
Last night I watched two women boxers pummel each other in a cage to the delight of men in the audience.
Women at war? Women beating each other up? Even women playing football?
What do these women want?
That’s what men do to each other. Women are supposed to be smarter than that!
Contrary to the conventional wisdom, men and women are not fungible.
If culture were left to the men, we would all be back in the caves. Perhaps that’s where these manly feminists are leading us.
Is this the kind of equality women signed up for?
Could this not be another throwback to Roe v. Wade?
Thanks to Gramsci women who once would only kill to protect their children are now destroying the fruits of their womb at home while killing enemies overseas.
I saw a sign in a parking lot in Falls Church, Virginia in 1963 that said if women ever get equal rights with men, it will be a step down for them.
I don’t know who wrote that but it has remained with me for nearly a half century as the most profound statement I have ever read.
So are all women really stupid?
Of course not!
But many, who have bought the feminist message of the 21st century and have sacrificed their innocence, family and self-respect on an altar of choice, are certainly no smarter than the woman who said, we have to pass it, so we will know what is in it.
Now that’s really stupid!
Check out this message about Roe v. Wade: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_Os0cwpCQE
The competitive racing of horses is reputed to have originated among the prehistoric nomadic tribesmen of Central Asia who first domesticated the horse about 4500 BC.
For thousands of years, horseracing flourished as the sport of kings and the nobility. It is the second most widely attended U.S. spectator sport, after baseball.
The interaction between horses and their owners, as well as the notion of winning and losing has ordinarily resonated very well on the screen.
The Jeff Bridges 2003 movie about Seabiscuit is a case in point.
After all who can hate a horse?
Liberal can—that’s who!
According to Rush Limbaugh it appears that liberals or at least some liberals have expressed a profound hatred of a new movie about a winning horse and his owners.
My wife and I saw Secretariat the other night. It is the dramatic presentation of the behind-the scenes story of one of racing’s greatest winners.
In 1973 Big Red won the sport’s coveted triple crown.
It is a feat that has been accomplished only eleven times since Sir Barton won the Kentucky Derby, the Preakness Stakes and the Belmont in 1919.
It is composed of these three different races in five weeks and in three different states and at varying distances.
Secretariat won all three races, capping off his crown with an incredible 31-length victory at New York’s Belmont Stakes.
It was a wonderful movie, staring the demure Dianne Lane in an inspiring role as a strong-willed woman who put winning and saving the family farm above her secure and cozy life in Colorado.
How could anyone find fault with that?
Then I started thinking about this movie being a paean to conservative values. Its protagonist, Penny Chenery, had a crisis in her family.
The mother of Lane’s character, Penny Chenery dies early in the movie and her grief-stricken father drifted into the deep recesses of his own mind.
Penny valiantly tried to make a go of the farm at great personal sacrifice and to the discomfort of her husband and four children.
The real drama occurred after the father’s death from a stroke.
As Penny’s boorish brother, the economics professor and her lawyer husband advised her, they needed to sell Secretariat to pay the six million dollar estate tax bill.
But Penny would not quit.
She showed a deep-seated American trait of intelligence and ingenuity to circumvent the intended destruction of her family-run farm.
Penny was the personification of economist Julia Simon’s argument that man (and woman), with his ingenuity and entrepreneurial spirit is the ultimate resource.
This is what created the drama of the movie and perhaps the real complaint behind the liberal Angst.
Penny was able to pay her taxes by establishing a consortium of investors in Secretariat’s projected winnings—all on speculation.
The movie is also a vivid illustration of the innate harm of the estate tax or the death tax that has confiscated billions in family wealth.
What most people forget or never knew is that the estate tax is one of the most onerous planks in Karl Marx and Frederick Engels’ 1848 pamphlet, The Communist Manifesto.
Salon columnist Andrew O’Hehir found some even darker things about American individualism and traditional values that upset his mental applecart.
He savagely attacked Penny’s character, even demeaning she was dressed in a resplendent collection of period knitwear and steel-magnolia ‘tude.
To O’Hehir she is like a classed-up version of Sarah Palin feminism.
This leftist critic was upset that Lane’s iron-willed superwoman, striking and magisterial but utterly nonsexual, illuminated from within like a medieval saint does not have despicable characteristics that would make her his kind of gal.
I thought liberals liked strong women.
This is is by far the strongest character Lane has ever played and she carried the role with a dignity and aplomb that hopefully will win her an Oscar.
Maybe they only love certain strong women, who abort their children, cheat on their husbands or sleep with other women?
Lane does none of that. She is June Clever, who just passed away this week, without the pearls, who will do anything to preserve her family’s traditions…and enjoy the thrill of the game.
O’Hehir was also disturbed by his perception that so many all right-thinking Americans are united in their adoration of a Nietzschean Überhorse,
The Nazi implications of his thinking are as subtle as a train wreck.
To him Secretariat is creepy, half-hilarious master-race propaganda almost worthy of Leni Riefenstahl—a symbolic window dressing for a quasi-inspirational fantasia of American whiteness and power.”
For O’Hehir to see this in Nietzschean terms is as appetizing as a 300 pound woman, trying to squeeze into a size 4. It just doesn’t fit.
Religion is also another problem for O’Hehir.
While director Randall Wallace references barely mentions the social context of the times, O’Hehir is convinced that this movie was constructed and marketed with at least one eye on Christian consevatives, who flock to Tea Parties and embraced a movie of a similar vein from last year, The Blind Side.
The film opens with a voice-over passage from the Book of Job and ends with a hymn.
Wallace, also the director of We Were Warriors and the writer of Braveheart and both Mel Gibson movies and is one of mainstream Hollywood’s few prominent Christians who has spoken openly about his faith and his desire to make movies that appeal to people with middle-American values.
O’Hehir also finds a troubling racial subtext in Secretariat in the groom, Eddie, who is an African-American groom belongs to a far more insidious tradition of movie stereotypes. Eddie dances and sings.
He loves Jesus and that big ol’ horse. He is loyal and deferential to Miz Penny, and injects soul and spirit into her troubled life.
I guess O’Hehir prefers the gang-banging, rap-spouting, drug-dealing nihilists whose stereotypical figures dominates in movies about black people today, as being more reflective of African-American culture.
He is upset by movies with strong family members, with its moral values,who support each other in the long run.
Liberal criticism of this movie that does not have any scenes of gratuitous sex or violence and does not have any foul language is proof positive that liberalism is a mental illness.
It is probably unfair of me to say that all liberals hate horses. I know that many are quite fond of the proletarian horse boxer (Barbara?) in George Orwell’s novel, Animal Farm.
In the 1920s Bruce Barton was more just an advertising executive. He was also a man determined to make business into something like an object of worship, and the business executive into the truest spiritual descendant of Jesus Christ.
In the Man Nobody Knows the two main characteristics Jesus had were his blazing convictionand his wonderful power to pick men–exactly the two attributes Barton says a successful business executive has to have.
His book sold well, and was also distributed free to managers and salesmen in business firms.
Only strong men can lead and Jesus had millions follow him over the years.
According to author Og Mandino St. Paul was the Greatest Salesman in the world.
It is interesting that these two movtivational speakers used Christianitry to emphasize principles of salesmanship—probably because of the great number of faithful and ardent Catholics throughout history.
Can we say that now?
Look at the Church teachings on life.
Thou shalt not kill is the 5th commandment and abortion is directly linked to the killing of innocent beings.
Yet it can’t sell its position, even to its own people.
Just look at the last election—54% of the American voters voted for Barack Obama, the most pro-abortion president in history.
When he was in the Illinois State House he voted present many times, which was the equivalent of a “no” vote to stop a bill that would have protected the nascent lives of abortion survivors, who were often put into a waste can and sequestered in some closet to die.
Now why is that?
How is it that the Church has failed to sell this most blessed event to its own people?
Are they only cultural Catholic or, what we may call CINOS—Catholics in name only or is there something else going on?
What are the obstacles to the selling of the life of the unborn child?
Many of them are cultural. Our flawed nature is clearly evident in the culture’s vast saturation with sex.
Thanks to the likes of Alfred Kinsey and Hugh Hefner, sexual frequency and variety seem to be the rule instead of fidelity and quality.
Another cultural obstacle is the narcissist nature of many of our opinion makers who stress the existential importance of making our own decisions, independent of parents, family, church and ethics.
Another important obstacle is the reigning mind set of many in the Catholic Church:
I am talking about Church leaders themselves—many of the actual pro-life leaders, who seem to undermine their own message.
I am basically talking about the principle of the Seamless Garment.
I call it The Shroud of Bernardin.
The metaphor of the seamless garment dates back to John’s Gospel (19:23), where the Roman soldiers cast lots for Jesus’ tunic, which was seamless, woven in one piece from the top.
This principle places the heinous evils of abortion and euthanasia on the same moral plane as war, poverty, the death penalty, immigration, tax cuts (anti), the federal deficit, education, health care, crime and the minimum wage.
The seamless garment appears as a symbol of unity, designed to underscore the Church’s deep concern for all human life, from the moment of conception to natural death.
Cynics would say that the seamless garment had been contrived to shroud Catholic politicians under a protective mantel of ecclesiastical approval.
Charity dictates that the divisiveness of the seamless garments was just one of a host of unintended consequences that spoiled a pious attempt to recognize the sanctity of all human life.
Whether unintentionally or maliciously, the Cardinal’s garment has served as a shroud under which several Catholic politicians have been able to hide for over twenty years.
The seamless garment has trivialized the Church’s opposition to abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research by equating it with civil rights, the death penalty, and the minimum wage.
Cardinal Bernardin’s seamless garment has produced anything but unity in the Church on prolife issues.
His metaphor has served to undermine, contradict, and provide a false moral equivalency that has ruptured and seriously damaged the Church’s historical teachings against abortion.
The seamless garment has been effectively used to rip and fray opposition to abortion, euthanasia, and embryonic stem cell research, the most important threads in the seamless garments.
It has permitted culture of death politicians to advocate a variegated list of anti-life programs that have blatantly contradicted the teachings of the Church on the sanctity of innocent life.
It is the policy that under the rubric of pro-life there are many different issues that are often summarized under the umbrella slogan of from conception to natural death.
Is any word missing from that definition?
Without the word innocent, I believe the motto is worthless!
I also understand it is the mantra for Father Pavone the founder of Priests for Life, who will be following me next time.
I interviewed him on KSIV for Phyllis Schlafly a few years ago and told him that I didn’t see any difference between that and the seamless garments because it seems to include the same broad spectrum of life issues, as does Bernardin’s Garment.
That is precisely the intent of the seamless garment to obscure and literally bury the triad of real life issues and the only ones that should attract your major attention and they are: abortion, euthanasia and embryonic stem cell research.
All the others are secondary.
Where are the bishops in all of this?
It is true that in a pluralistic society the Church cannot impose its moral teachings on society as a whole.
But the bishops have an ecclesiastical responsibility of following the three-verb job description of their holy office, which is to teach, govern and sanctify their flocks.
They have a moral responsibility to demand that the Church’s visible members reflect its teachings in the same breath that they proclaim themselves to be good Catholics.
For the bishops to declare that pro-abortion politicians cannot be in the state of grace because of their obstinacy in face of the Church’s teaching and their persistence in scandalizing the rest of the faithful, they are not guilty of excessive vigilance.
They are merely performing their magisterial duty in accordance with Canons 915 and 916.
This reminds me of the Durbin Survey just before the 2004 national elections.
Democratic Senator Richard Durbin of Illinois released a report in early June of 2004 that analyzed the votes of 24 Catholic U.S. Senators on a variety of issues of great interest to the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) during the 108th Congress (2003-2004).
The issues where divided into three areas: Domestic, International, and Pro-Life.
There was no sliding scale. Each category was morally equally.
The death of an unborn baby carried as much value as a 50-cent raise in the minimum wage.
This underscores the liberal approach to societal problems and religious integrity.
Not surprisingly, Senator John Kerry, Durbin, and Edward Kennedy all earned scores of just over 60% in accordance with the issues promulgated by the USCCB.
Republican Senators Peter Fitzgerald and Sam Brownback, who have consistently voted against abortion, scored just over 50%.
Santorum was about 53%.
Another stark contrast to modern Catholic politicians is the story of St. Thomas More who defied his king for the love of his Church in the 16th century.
St. Thomas More, the patron saint of lawyers and politicians, refused to approve the Act of Supremacy of King Henry VIII, whereby the king declared himself to be the Head of the Church.
More and Henry had been lifelong friends.But the king’s defiance of Rome because of his celebrated divorce of his first Queen, Catherine of Aragon, so he could marry his pregnant mistress Ann Boleyn, painted More into a deadly corner.
Before his beheading in the Tower of London, in 1535, More modestly proclaimed I am the king’s good servant but God’s first.
How come our society has not produced men in political office of More’s worth and courage?
Where are our prelates and priests who are so dedicated to saving the lives of the unborn?
Or are their hearts still caught within the false promises of the Civil Rights movement of the 1960’s. That is our conundrum…that is our challenge.
I just started reading Marlo Thomas’ new book Growing Up Laughing about growing up in a home riven with jokes and good humor.
Her late father was Danny Thomas and he gave me the best rule of thumb…or motto about having fun and making jokes.
One should never ridicule or mock another human being. Doing lines on fat people, short people or evenbaldpeople…without their implicit permission is dead wrong.
Danny said on his Make Room for Daddy show one time that the only person I have the right to make fun of is myself.
That rule of humor and more importantly of life has been the standard that I use to laugh and have a good time.
I am very good at self-effacing commentary.
My new favorite is I am an only child and I never was my parent’s ‘favorite’ child. They liked the neighbors kids better.
Or my dad predicted I would be a football player. This is the end.
I figure every one else makes fun of me–I had better beat them to the punch.
Where I come from Borst-picking is in season 24/7.
If only more people would learn the positive value of humor.
It has been said Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and you cry alone!
Due to our growing trend toward narcissism and victimhood, this truism has been effectively turned on its head.
We are fast becoming a land of whiners and crybabies.
Millions flock daily to Oprah with the expectation of seeing people they can cry with or whose lives mirror their own sad existence.
Tears reign where laughter once ruled.
As for myself, I have always liked to laugh and make fun.
If I don’t chuckle twenty times a day, I tend to feel nervous or get headaches.
I need that natural endorphin rush to go about life with a smile on my face. That thought is not just in my imagination.
The late editor of the Saturday Evening Post, Norman Cousins dramatically proved that laughter is the best medicine, many years ago when he was diagnosed with a terminal disease.
Determined that his time was not up, Cousins rented a motel room, replete with a VCR.
He spent a week, inundating himself with the side-splitting antics of Laurel & Hardy, the Three Stooges and the Marx Brothers.
Personally Groucho and his siblings never did anything for me.
The results were astonishing.
Cousins survived his terminal disease, only to die in 1990 at the age of 75 of a different malady— one more presumably resistant to the therapeutic powers of slapstick comedy.
People have always though I was funny.
I am aware the word has two connotations.
I have tried to entertain small groups in conversation ever since my grandfather’s wake thirty-five years ago.
My relentless pursuit of the evocative, cheek-swelling reaction to my hilarious barbs has served me well at parties and social gatherings ever since.
I even tried a standup comedy routine on a cruise many years ago.
I dutifully prepared four minutes of humor.
Like teaching and writing, the rules are that you should only do what you know best or what your audience can relate to.
So I did lines on each member of my immediate family.
My delivery was near perfect, yet the three hundred and fifty people in the audience found occasion to laugh only at references to Matthew, my eight-year old son, who I said had the instincts of a terrorist.
I don’t think anyone would laugh at that today.
The prior evening my wife had been commandeered from the audience to assist a magician in his act.
He wanted to cut off her head.
I used that in my monologue, talking about her shortcomings and the fact that before the act was over four ladies inquired as to my availability after the show.
Not only did no one laugh at that remark, one woman scolded me for having had the nerve to say such things about my wife.
Or perhaps she didn’t like my comment about my wife as Attila the Honeybun.
The success of my humor is that it often blows back in my face. I tend to be a bit wordy. That’s like saying Mother Teresa was a bit holy.
My wife gave me a tee-shirt that read, I am talking and I can’t shut-up. I love that shirt!
After spending two weeks on a bus tour a new friend asked me, Do you breathe through your ears, because I have not seen you stop talking long enough to do so?
I also consider myself a student of humor, especially political humor.
This country has had a rich and proud tradition of funny people from the political satire of Will Rogers through the physical antics of Jackie Gleason, Steve Martin, and Richard Pryor.
Rogers once said that when Congress makes a joke…it’s a law.
I wonder if that’s what President Obama had in mind with his health care bill.
No president had a better sense of humor than Ronald Reagan. I can’t help thinking back to his debate with Democratic challenger, Fritz Mondale when Reagan said that people were worried that Mondale might be too young for the job.
Chevy Chase was marvelous in his 1976 satire of President Gerald Ford.
I’ll never forget Chase’s pratfall in a breakaway-voting booth that cracked three of his ribs.
I’ll bet he cost Ford a million votes.
As a result the comedian became addicted to pain pills, requiring a period of recovery at the Betty Ford Clinic. Now that’s real irony!
Our political debates have taken us down a route that even Jay Leno nor David Letterman can’t restore.
What passes for humor today is generally mean-spirited and because of the political correct nature of so much of our discourse, it is increasing more difficult to tweak individuals with group consciousness without being charged with outlandish claims of insensitivity.
As a result comedians have retreated into the safe harbors of their own groups for humorous exchange.
All this being said, we should all reflect on what philosopher Russell Kirk wrote, A sense of humor can only exist in a world of faith.
It is my deep fear that our country has broken faith with its past, having forfeited that wonderful gift which Kirk called the trace of God’s smile.
But it is never too late. Maybe a good laugh is still the best medicine for what ails us. Try it and let me know if it works.
I just finished reading TV and radio host, Bill O’Reilly’s latest book, Pinheads and Patriots: Where you stand in the age of Obama.
For the uninformed, a regular feature on O’Reilly’s Fox News TV show is where the host categorizes news figures as pinheads or patriots.
The latter are the worthies who have done something that benefits society.
Pinheads slide on a slippery slope. Get in with the wrong crowd, get taken in by their own success, or get some bad advice, and all of that can lead to a residence in Pinheadville, a place everyone should avoid if you can.
Like his TV show, the Factor with its no spin zone, O’Reilly has an uncanny knack for irritating me to the nth degree.
As par for his mini golf course, he vainly attempts to be fair and balanced, which by my standards only guarantees that he will be wrong 50% of the time.
The very nature of his motto implies a certain kind of moral equivalency that is destructive to moral issues, such as abortion.
He takes so much time in bending over backwards so as appear to be fair that he nullifies or undercuts the truth that his positions supposedly are based on.
Oh don’t get me wrong, there are times when he shows his true combative mettle, especially in dealing with the likes of Barney Frank, the homosexual Congressman from Massachusetts.
After reading Pinheads, I have come to the conclusion that O’Reilly is at his combative best when discussing economic issues as demonstrated by his boisterous confrontation with Frank and his splendid but incomplete interview with Barack Obama–the latter which comprised the last and arguably the best chapter in his book.
But I wasn’t crazy about how Bill was so chummy with the president. They bonded like two pals after a friendly game of basketball.
I have noticed that aspect of O’Reilly’s demeanor when dealing with left-wing icons–with the sole exception Mr. Frank.
His deference reminds me of the way opposing lawyers pal around after a nasty court case.
You could have had them switch sides during the court proceedings and they would have done so like chameleons on a bush.
My biggest complaint with Bill is his bogus claim that he is a cultural warrior.
That would be risible if it were not so serious. To Bill the culture war involves saving a few Christmas trees and creches from extinction.
He is more like a cultural spectator, sitting on the sideline, afraid to really take a side than a real cultural warrior.
The major issue of the current culture war is abortion.
It serves as the symbol for the attitudes and deep beliefs that separate us as a people…just as slavery bifurcated the nation 150 years ago.
Abortion has divided us into right and left, red and blue states, and conservative and liberal.
I interviewed Bill on my old radio station, WGNU, just before his ascendancy into the big time…though I take absolutely no credit for it.
The interview on WGNU lasted about 15 minutes–I was a big deal around the station for landing O’Reilly–on our small station. I usually produced my own show—well at least I procured all my own guests.
Of that 15 minutes, I spoke no more than 90 seconds and let him do most of the talking, which was not a difficult chore.
I think that’s what has made me a really good interviewer— I let the guest speak. I believe people would rather hear the ideas of the guests than my interpretation of their ideas.
As a footnote that’s why O’Reilly is a poor interviewer— he is too interested in giving his spin and in his own the no-spin zone–rather than letting them talk.
The only issue I challenged him on was abortion.
I feel that he does not like to discuss the subject. I think he may be afraid of the acrimony and unpopularity that is attendant to being authentically pro-life.
His answer if my recall is accurate was pure whishy-washiness…a vapid, non-committal bit of unadulterated intellectual fluff that was designed to get out of the hole with the fewest scrapes.
His autobiography A Bold Piece of Meat or whatever the nun called him many years ago went a long way in understanding just who Bill O’Reilly really is. I was generally impressed with his candor about his wise-guy past. (No, I am not saying he was a hitman for the Mafia!)
I was amazed as to how poor a student he was in grade school. He prided himself on being the bane of most of the nuns existence.
Fortunately for him his buddy Clem was did some things, Bill would never in all of his boldness have attempted.
At 6’4″ tall sports were his forte. He played virtually everything that had a ball or a puck.
O’Reilly appears much taller when you stand next to him–which I did at a benefit for the St. Agnes Home here in St. Louis.
One thing I will say is that he is very generous with his time for charitable causes–I believe he waived his usual $75,000 fee.
The format for his talk was written questions in advance so he could filter the ones he did not want to answer.
I had written one about abortion but I was told it never made it to the floor, even though he did spend three hours answering questions.
I had a personal conflict that night–I really wanted to hear him speak but dinner took so long that I did not want to miss any more of the Holy Cross-SIU basketball game that was being televised at the same time.
Bill’s father had gone to Holy Cross and became an accountant.
I tried to use this as an ice-breaker during my interview but his father’s education did not seem to hold a high place in his priority system.
I tried that with a Cardinal of the Church one time with a similar result.
That’s how I got to briefly talk to him. We were waiting in the wings, getting ready to bolt when he was making his entrance from the same spot.
I briefly mentioned his being on my program years ago. He politely nodded with that disdainful look he sometimes has on the air when he wanted to dismiss a subject.
For the record my early departure was all for naught as Holy Cross was down by 10 points at the half and never got back into the game and as we were summarily eliminated from the NCAA’s Big Dance as we had been for the last 50 years.
I was not surprised that O’Reilly had failed again to adequately broach the “A” subject.
In his book on the culture war, Bill does not even list abortion in the index. How can he call himself a cultural warrior?
In his Bold Piece book, there are just two comments in the book on abortion. I think he said that we really didn’t know when life began and the second was similarly dismissive.
I do remember that his thoughts on this issue could have been written by Harry Blackmun, who had written the majority opinion on the infamous Roe v. Wade decision in 1973.
I am not saying that Bill is pro-choice but I think this giant cultural warrior is a midget when it comes to defending innocent life.
He is a wimp, or whatever word fits someone who does not have the courage of his convictions.
Perhaps he is afraid of offending women.
After watching his colleague, the Foxy Meghan Kelly eat his lunch time and time again, maybe I am on to something.
I think all women should be offended by this attack on the greatest power that any human could ever have–the ability to give life to a child of God.
They should all know that abortion was invented by men for the benefit of men.
I don’t know who said that but it sounds like something Hugh Hefner could sink his false teeth into.
They tell me that the Jesuits at Holy Cross virtually let the feminists run the place because they are afraid of them.
Millions of real women are out there protesting what abortion is doing to women.
I have seen them..I have stood with them.
Where is O’Reilly? Has he ever picketed an abortion clinic? Has he ever attended a march in Washington D. C.?
That’s what cultural warriors do…not sit around and pontificate about the assault on Christmas as testament their membership in the culture war crusade.
Does all this make Bill a pinhead? I’ll let you make up your mind.
Send me your comments, I would love to hear what YOU think Bill is.