Keep It Pithy

by Bill O'Reilly

  Somewhat in this vein, a very interesting thing happened on The Factor with a story involving openly gay Ellen DeGeneres, J. C. Penney, and a conservative family organization known as One Million Moms. The background to the story is that the Moms demanded that the department store chain fire Ms. DeGeneres as a spokesperson because of her sexual orientation.

  Here’s a portion of my discussion of the topic on my program January 28, 2013, with Fox News contributor Sandy Rios.…

  O’REILLY: This is a business deal. Ms. DeGeneres is hired as a spokesperson by J. C. Penney. J. C. Penney has an absolutely perfect right to do that.… So there she is, earning a salary to represent the department store chain. And then the Million Moms say, “Hey, because we feel a certain way about Ms. DeGeneres’s lifestyle, you need to fire her.” I don’t think that’s the spirit of America, Sandy, I’ve got to tell you.

  RIOS: Bill, spokespeople stand for something. People are chosen because they stand for certain things. They represent companies. It matters very much what they stand for. From my perspective, it isn’t about Ellen DeGeneres, but it’s about mainstreaming something that is not acceptable to Christian and traditional family people all over the country.

  O’REILLY: But they don’t have to shop there. They don’t have to shop there.… And this is where we run into a problem. Because if you remember with the McCarthy era, in the fifties, and they were hunting down communist sympathizers and not let them work … What is the difference between a McCarthy-era communist blacklist in the fifties and the Million Moms say[ing], “Hey, J. C. Penney and you other stores, don’t you hire any gay people. Don’t you dare”? What is the difference?

  RIOS: The problem is that Ellen DeGeneres has chosen to act out her lesbian lifestyle, marry her partner. It is what that represents. And the fact that J. C. Penney is supposed to be middle America, the store where families shop …

  O’REILLY: Don’t shop there.

  RIOS: It’s disturbing to them.

  O’REILLY: Don’t shop there.… You’re dodging the essential question. The essential question is that a group, a conservative group in this country, is asking a private company to fire an American citizen based upon her lifestyle. And I don’t think that’s correct.…

  And so forth, round and round in the discussion, but I think you get my point.

  Now, for something completely different—

  Like Ann Landers, I’ve come up with a little manual for dealing with the opposite sex, but my point of view is not the same [as hers]. Bring on the cheek-to-cheek, the heavy petting, and the home runs, but not ever with any of the following prohibited, ridiculous lines:

  He says,

  “I’ve never met anyone like you.” Please.

  “You remind me of my mom.” Run, lady.

  “Sex isn’t really that important.” Run very fast.

  “Look, I just want to talk to you. Nothing will happen if I come in.” Lock the door.

  “I haven’t felt this way about a woman in years.” If said on the first date, call the cops.

  “Just one more drink won’t hurt.” Take his keys and drive home without him.

  “Want to see my tattoo?” Begin coughing, and do not stop. Tell him you picked up something in the Amazon rain forest.

  But it’s not just the guys who come out with the ridiculous lines.

  Your reporter has tirelessly collected a few gems from the other side:

  She says,

  “Let’s be friends.” Fine. Date her best friend.

  “My sister’s got two beautiful kids.” Whatever you do, do not have sex with this woman.

  “I’m not that kind of girl.” Get the telephone number of her best friend right now.

  “Where do you buy your clothes?” Get to a mirror fast.

  “I’m so tired of the dating scene.” Fella, she has designs on you.

  “My ex-boyfriend …” She’s still in love.

  “When I graduated from Vassar …” Run.

  “My mother says …” Run faster.

  “Once I make up my mind about a guy …” Lock the door.

  “I feel we have a soul connection.” Dial 911.

  “Christmas with my folks would be nice.” That’s it. Your dating days are done.

  I see no reason to change any of the rules in my dating manual. If you disagree, please let me know.

  But, more seriously …

  Many self-described traditionalists support the death penalty. We’ve all heard their arguments; they go back to the beginnings of the Republic.

  This traditionalist disagrees.

  I am against the death penalty because I feel it is too lenient a punishment. For example, Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh asked to be put to death and got his wish. McVeigh did not want to spend decades looking at the inside of stone walls and enjoyed going out as a martyr to his screwed-up confederates. According to some who corresponded with him, McVeigh almost relished the thought of the three different tubes of sedatives and poisons being dumped into his veins. And we accommodated him.

  I’ve got a better idea. A punishment more appropriate—and much more terrifying—for McVeigh and others who commit crimes against humanity (this includes murder, rape, and large-quantity hard-drug dealing) would be to sentence them to life in prison in a federal penitentiary in Alaska. There they would be forced to endure hard labor, and if they refused to work, they would be quarantined in solitary confinement for twenty-three hours a day. This would effectively banish killers and rapists and condemn them to a life of harsh servitude. This is much more painful than death by injection or electricity.

  There’s another advantage, and we have to be honest about it. Mistakes can be made in criminal prosecutions for a variety of very human reasons. You’ve seen the reports about DNA or other evidence that has exonerated convicts, even some convicted of murder. It is going to happen because no system is perfect. By not executing prisoners a mistake like that can be rectified, as the convicts remain alive. (One interesting footnote: 53 percent of Americans in a national poll believe there should be an execution moratorium. That poll was taken in 2001 after some law students at Northwestern University produced evidence that some Illinois death row inmates had been improperly tried.)

  But let’s get back to you (and me).

  A personal No Spin Zone will save you time, money, and frustration. It will allow you to make value judgments based upon hard facts and evidence. And—provided that you keep an open mind and examine all available credible data—you’ll be comfortable with your conclusions on most matters.

  Here’s the key that unlocks the Zone: the ability to be rigorous with yourself in always challenging your initial thoughts and conclusions. The Zone is no place for zealots, lemmings, or weak-minded followers. It is a state of mind that demands the discipline of clear thinking and the flexibility to change that thinking should the evidence dictate. Summing up, the No Spin Zone is not an easy place to be.

  Why? Because it’s far easier to let others form your opinions. You then don’t have to exercise your brain cells and the crowd will readily accept you. Politicians, commentators, and others vying to fill your head space are eager to supply you with particular points of view. And increasingly, many Americans are buying into viewpoints that crush independent thinking. Why think when media talking heads and newspaper columnists will do that for you? After all, aren’t these people “experts”?

  Well, no, they are not. At least most of them aren’t. There are no experts when it comes to making personal decisions. That’s your own private domain. Sure, nobody is right all the time and you won’t be either. We are all occasionally defeated on the field of logic. But take your shot at forming your own personal philosophy. It’s actually fun and satisfying to develop a code of behavior and a clear thinking pattern. Don’t let pinheads, even smart pinheads, do your thinking for you.

  Here are the outlines of my own personal No Spin Zone.

  Yours will be, and of course should be, different. La
st I heard, no two people are exactly alike.

  I believe that the federal government wastes a huge amount of the people’s money and that most politicians buy votes with entitlement promises.

  I believe that global warming is real.

  I believe that the green movement has hurt America because it has shut down responsible energy exploration.

  I don’t believe in the death penalty [see this page].

  I would not outlaw abortion, but I would restrict it and encourage Americans to see this ghastly procedure as a human rights issue.

  I believe in stringent control of hard drugs, but I would decriminalize marijuana use.

  I would “suggest” that the automakers develop cars and trucks that would be far more fuel-efficient than they are today. (If they don’t, the government ought to slap a huge tax on them.)

  I would order the Department of Energy to strictly monitor any kind of energy price collusion or gouging—and impose massive fines on any company found guilty of these crimes.

  I would have the federal government negotiate discounted drug prices with pharmaceutical companies so that there could be an affordable Medicare drug benefit. These manufacturers should be pressured to be “generous” in their pricing and rewarded with tax incentives for complying.

  I believe America should maintain the most powerful armed forces in the world and develop a missile shield if the technology is feasible.

  I would eliminate the payroll tax and institute a national sales tax to cover Social Security and Medicare. The sales tax would slide depending on need. Those Americans who saved would be rewarded. The poorest would have more cash in their pockets.

  I support setting up federal prison work camps on federal land in Alaska for violent offenders. Murder, rape, hard-drug dealing, and gun crimes would be punished at the federal level—taking the massive expense and chaos away from the states. These federal prisons would be run military-style, and the violent convicts would in effect be banished from society.

  I believe our government should place the U.S. military on the border with Mexico to stabilize the illegal immigrant and drug smuggling problems. The military would back up the Border Patrol but would have arrest powers, requiring that the posse comitatus law be changed.

  In conjunction with strict border enforcement, the USA should set up a “guest worker” program if the Mexican government would cooperate. U.S. companies and individuals that need labor would be able to participate in the program. But it would be administered in an orderly manner and taxes would be paid.

  Your turn now.

  Get cracking.

  Rules for dealing with me.

  I don’t tolerate victimizers or charlatans or liars or manipulators.

  If solicitors call my home, for example, I tell them within ten seconds that I do not do business on the phone—they can send me something if they like. Then I hang up. Rude? No. The call is intrusive and rude.

  Another example is that I have instituted the two-call rule in my personal Zone. If I call a person twice and don’t receive a call back, that relationship is over. I leave a short message saying that I will not be calling again. If it’s a business matter, I turn the thing over to my attorney (an old friend I trust). If I absolutely have to reach someone for business, I call his or her secretary and set up a phone appointment. I ask for an exact time when I can talk to the person. If the secretary is unwilling to do that, I know that the business arrangement, whatever it is, will not work.

  Other Zone Commandments.

  If I’ve made a restaurant reservation, I expect it to be honored within fifteen minutes. Same with a doctor’s appointment. The physician’s time is valuable, but so is mine and so is yours. Being on time and honoring your word are signs of respect. I want to deal only with people who are respectful of others, even in a casual setting such as a restaurant. Be aware of how others are treating you and question that treatment if you feel it isn’t square. That’s all part of a no spin life.

  What I’ve learned over the years is that friendship is a two-way deal, and it’s not easy. People get married, have kids, get sick, lose jobs, live life. And to keep a friend through all that, you have to be accessible. Some of my friends check in regularly, some just once in a while. But I have to know that they are there if I need them. Because they know the converse is true.

  Like everyone else, I’ve lost friends along the way. That is inevitable, and I don’t dwell on it. If somebody vanishes, I’ll try to find out why. But I won’t try too hard.

  That’s because true friendship is a choice you make. Both parties have to buy in on an equal basis. If you have to convince someone to be your friend, the concept of friendship falls apart. Like love, you can’t force it.

  That’s why my father said you’re lucky to have five friends in your entire life. He had a few friends, but not many. My mother had far more, because she was outgoing and accessible, while my father was intense and often exhausted.

  Sadly, I see the concept of friendship, as I have outlined it, declining in America. With people moving around so much, the small-town neighborhood culture we once had in this country is being replaced by high-tech anonymous “friendship” that’s offered on the Internet. This trend will likely weaken the social fabric of the United States, as long-term friendships, like long-term marriages, are a societal stabilizer.

  For me, old friends have made me stronger and happier. In my early years, I had no idea that I would rise so high in my career; nor did my friends. They were betting on the penitentiary. But we didn’t base our friendships on the expectation of material success. Some of these guys have been with me in Levittown, at St. Brigid’s, through high school and college, at my first journalism job in Scranton, Pennsylvania, and onward through the decades. Never did it matter what my job was or where I lived or how much money I made. It’s always been, and still is, about shared experiences and loyalty.…

  (photo credit 9.1)

  Summing up, friends don’t let friends forget where they came from. Should be a commercial.

  TEN

  A DECADE’S WORTH OF HEAD SHOTS TO THE RICH AND POWERFUL

  The Good, the Bad, the Ugly

  Quite a few of you had never heard of GEORGE SOROS when I wrote about him in Culture Warrior. (So you told me.) But if you were awake during the 2012 election, you must have read or seen reportage about his huge financial support for his favorite left-wing causes.

  (photo credit 10.1)

  Soros is El Jefe of the S-P forces, a man whose vast fortune is directed toward undermining traditional America and replacing it with a so-called Open Society. George Soros is the puppet master, the man with the plan, a ferociously far-left force about whom most Americans know little or nothing.… What kind of man is Soros? Well, he does not believe in God, his social philosophy is libertarian, and his political outlook is far, far left.… At this point, he is the prime financier of a number of operations that consistently smear conservative and traditional Americans.… To sum up, Soros is a smart, ruthless ideologue who will stop at nothing to advance the secular-progressive offensive. He has no scruples, ethics, or sense of fair play.

  On a lighter note, as they say, here’s what I wrote once about S-P-leaning actor ALEC BALDWIN.

  Alec Baldwin is a first-rate actor who can convincingly bring to life a variety of characters. Check out his performance in Glengarry Glen Ross. It’s brilliant. Yet Baldwin has not achieved the leading-man fame that was once predicted for him, and some believe his strident politics (calling Dick Cheney a madman, generally overreacting to conservative thought) have damaged him in the marketplace because some right-leaning Americans abhor his politics. And it might be true.…

  (photo credit 10.2)

  Okay, okay.

  You can stop laughing now. He’s everywhere in the entertainment marketplace.

  Stop it!

  I’m the perceptive one, all right. Check this out.

  CHARLES RANGEL. The congressman from Harlem may be to the l
eft of Karl Marx, but he will show up anywhere to defend his positions, and he does so with good humor. I always enjoy sparring with him, and I find that he is always worth listening to. Why? Because he is a hardscrabble guy who actually cares about his constituents. If we had more elected officials like him, from left to center to right of the political spectrum, this would be more like the country designed by our Founding Fathers. There’s nothing wrong with having opposite points of view. What’s wrong is corruption or incompetence.

  (photo credit 10.3)

  Charlie, I guess we hardly knew ye.

  We’re all flawed. I say that a lot, always including myself.

  But Rangel’s apparent ethical “malfunctions” now being investigated are so petty, so stupid, so hurtful to his legacy that I’m flummoxed.

  It takes a lot to flummox me. I still believe most of what I wrote above, but how can both Rangels exist in the same man?

  If you figure it out, write me.

  Somehow, when I talk about others, I often talk about myself as well.

  Something wrong with that?

  (photo credit 10.4)

  I am a journalist who insists on honest government; I’m an absolutist (some say fanatic) in that way. Lie, cheat, steal in the public arena—I’m gonna let you have it and I don’t care who you are.

  DAN RATHER is more of a pragmatist. He indeed has seen it all and is willing to tolerate far more shenanigans than I am. He understands that a certain amount of corruption is built into the system and is willing to play by those rules. I am not.