Pinheads and Patriots

by Bill O'Reilly

  THE TECH OFFENSIVE

  Let’s leave politics for a moment and examine a huge danger that is looming large in America: the rise of the machines! I’m not playing around. High-tech gizmos are now dominating the lives of many Americans, particularly the young. With so much time being spent in unreal digital precincts, interpersonal relationships, beginning with family life, are suffering. This dramatic change is already affecting us all, and it will only get worse as the machines become even more sophisticated and, for some, addictive.

  Here’s a good example. No longer are loyalty and true friendship admired or even sought after in many quarters. What’s being sold today in their place is instant gratification. Just turn on a computer, and you can create your own world. Who needs to deal with real problems and come up with effective solutions when escape is only a finger-click away? Why bother cultivating close personal relationships when you can chat with thousands and never even leave your home?

  I see the machine culture thriving among some of the younger people working at Fox News. Their entire lives revolve around gadgets: iPods, cell phones, BlackBerries, what have you. Their attention is usurped and their minds are constantly cluttered by these toys. When I encourage big-picture thinking and creative storytelling, I get a lot of blank stares. With machines constantly pulsating signals inside their heads, it is hard for young people to develop insights and problem-solving skills. Will the USA become a nation of robots? Could happen.

  Don’t get me wrong, I see how these gadgets have worked to some people’s short-term advantage, but it’s the long term I’m interested in. It was the high-tech age that made it so much easier for Barack Obama’s nonspecific message of hope and change to catch fire. In fact, his use of flashy gizmos also contributed to the perception that John McCain was old-fashioned. Obama represented the quick-text-message era, while McCain seemed to harken back to the old rotary phone (if you know what that is).

  Just the same, John McCain is a true Patriot. I selected him as my 2009 “Person of the Year” because he consistently stood up for what is right during a very turbulent year.

  You may remember that it was Senator McCain who told the world that the Iranian dissidents who are trying to overthrow that awful government needed international support. He urged apathetic nations to rally around freedom-loving Iranians, but few countries did—not even the United States. President Obama’s posture indicated that America was not going to intrude in Iran’s internal affairs. On June 23, 2009, the President said this: “I’ve made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran’s affairs.”

  Later on, the President showed a bit more sympathy for the Iranian rebels’ determination to toss out the mullahs, but still did not lend his moral authority to their cause.

  Mr. Obama’s words on Iran drove Senator McCain crazy, as they should have. I can’t help but think that if the senator had displayed the same passion during his campaign in 2008 that he has shown regarding key issues in 2009, he might be the one facing down Iran, not Barack Obama.

  Sen. John McCain (R-AZ, center), my pick as “Person of the Year” in 2009, speaks at a press conference on Capitol Hill regarding possible human rights sanctions against Iran. With him are Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT, left) and Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN, right).

  Associated Press/AP

  Photographed by Manuel Balce Ceneta

  But back to my original point—John McCain did not mount a full-court press campaign; he did not blitz his opponent. And he certainly did not use gadgets to his advantage. He ran a measured race and got his butt kicked because, as the senator found out, we are indeed living in a changing America. Machines now carry messages like lightning. The old-time methods of public discourse are pretty much a thing of the past.

  There is some good news in all of this, however. When the tweets, Facebook updates, and YouTube videos subside, the folks seem to be still keeping an open mind about events. Thus, the modern guy, Mr. Obama, is now being evaluated based on performance, not some high-tech propaganda. This gives me hope. A President should rise and fall based on what he actually does, not what he says.

  But back to you, the person who is reading this book. My God, how quaint is that?! You’re holding an actual book and turning its pages. Relish the experience. It won’t be long before that and many other things we have taken for granted become extinct, too. Very soon there’ll be a machine that distills the knowledge in books so it can be fed intravenously into your brain without any work on your part. Yet another convenience that will rob us of personal creativity.

  So the question becomes, what should you do in the face of great change?

  Well, try this: don’t you change unless it helps your life.

  My “social networking” is done in person. I don’t twitter. Or tweet, or whatever they call it. Also, I don’t chat online, use an iPod, or rely on text messaging. I refuse to do these things because they do not help me. Let’s take twittering, for example. Apparently, you use this medium to tell other people what you are doing all day, every day. But why? Why do you want folks to know your daily experiences? Does that help you in any way? Doesn’t that take time away from other stuff that could advance your life, help you achieve something of value? I have asked some Twitter people why they do it, and the consensus is, “It’s fun.” Okay, fun is good as long as no one, including you, gets hurt. So if tweeting is entertaining for you, well, tweet hardy. For me, however, high-tech blathering is frittering away my time, which is already limited by a crowded work and home schedule.

  I like to read. I learn things from reading books, magazines, and newspapers (God help me). I’m not sure I’d be learning a lot reading Taylor Swift’s daily diary. As always, I could be wrong.

  I also learn things from watching people and taking walks without headphones on. On these walks, I think and look at actual life. Machines are banned.

  So how boring am I? Up there with Lawrence Welk, right? If you don’t know old Lawrence, he was a bland bandleader whom your grandmother might have liked way back in the 1960s. Welk’s big line was, “And a one and a two…” Stupefying.

  Unlike Lawrence Welk, I am not boring on TV; at least, that’s what the ratings and research indicate. Thank God, millions of folks think the presentation on The O’Reilly Factor is unique and spontaneous. That’s because I actually think about what I’m going to do and say on the program. I think about this without Lady Gaga screaming in my ear, with all due respect to Ms. Gaga, a marketing genius.

  Also, because I read an enormous amount, I am prepared to back up my opinions with actual facts. That separates me from many TV talking heads who spend hours in makeup with headphones on, bopping to the Crocodile Rock or something. Sorry if I sound supercilious, but I have not succumbed to the machine life. That, I believe, has helped me maintain success.

  Sadly, it is hard to convince some younger folks that my strategy has merit. Compelling ideas come into clear minds. Walking in a forest or on a beach is good for clarity and creativity. Especially if you do this without Jay-Z (another marketing genius) rapping directly into your eardrum. Are you hearing me on this? Are you still able to hear?

  The writer Stephen King recently wrote a novel in which cell phone users turned into violent zombies. He was obviously satirizing our machine-saturated society. But some folks actually are high-tech zombies in real life; they have lost the ability to experience reality. Want sex? You can get facsimile all over the Net. Want a date? You can chat up people all day long. Want food? Well, the Net can’t feed you yet, but I’ll bet they’re working on it.

  So let’s return to the central question: How does a changing America directly affect you? The election of Barack Obama is illustration number one. He raised millions on the Net and convinced younger voters to support him in great numbers. Now, the President and his crew are affecting all of our lives. Without cyberspace, I do not believe an inexperienced politician like Obama would have been electe
d to the most powerful position in the world. Remember, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had lengthy political résumés when they were elected. Barack Obama was a senator for less than two years, and did little of substance in his time on the Hill.

  President Obama walks along the White House colonnade with his beloved BlackBerry!

  White House

  The second change we all have to deal with is raising children. Have you tried having a conversation with a kid lately? It’s never been easy, but these days it’s a killer. Often, you have to literally yank portable machines out of their hands to get kids’ attention. Predictably, the urchins resent the intrusion on their fun, so right away we adults are not in a great communication position.

  Listen to this: according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study, American kids ages eight to eighteen spend 7.5 hours a day on average consuming electronic stimulation. Do the math. The kid sleeps nine hours, then goes to school for six. Therefore, Sally or Brendan has only 2.5 free hours a day unattached to machines. This is unbelievable. When do children play outside? When do they have conversations? If you think this isn’t going to change the United States very soon, you’re a Pinhead. This is BIG.

  Here’s the kid chart from Kaiser:

  * * *

  Watching TV 4.5 hours a day

  Listening to music 2.5 hours a day

  Talking on cell phones 30 minutes a day

  Playing video games 1.3 hours a day

  Text messaging 1.5 hours a day

  Nonschool computer use 1.5 hours a day

  * * *

  Note that the chart’s data accounts for the fact that each child has a different profile. Kaiser essentially pooled the information to come up with an average of total daily machine intrusion time. The numbers, of course, make the situation crystal clear: American children are hooked on tech, and the unintended consequences of that will radically change our society and country.

  The Way We Were

  In my house when I was growing up, we had a kitchen blender, a TV, and a few radios. Machine time was slim. Despite that, there wasn’t much parent/kid chat, as I illustrated in my previous book, A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity. At the nightly dinner table, my sister and I were held captive, since we had no escape from whatever my father and mother wanted to drop on us.

  A sample conversation went like this:

  Bill O’Reilly Sr.: These potatoes are great, aren’t they? Why aren’t you eating them, son?

  Bill O’Reilly Jr.: Aren’t these instant potatoes? They aren’t real, are they, Mom?

  Mom: There’s no difference, honey.

  Senior: Eat them, okay? Janet, you’re not eating your potatoes, either.

  Janet: Mmmmm.

  Senior: Good peas, Mom. Kids, eat your peas.

  Junior: Are these instant peas?

  Senior: There’s no such thing as instant peas. EAT THEM!

  Junior [points to Janet]: She’s not eating her peas. Why are you picking on me? It’s not fair.

  Senior: We don’t waste food in this house! I want the potatoes and peas eaten.

  Junior: I have to go to the bathroom.

  Senior: You’ll hold it until the potatoes and peas are gone.

  Mom: Just eat up, kids, and then there’s Oreos for dessert.

  Junior: Mom, if you mix an Oreo with the peas, I might be able to eat them.

  Senior: Don’t be a wise guy. You know what happens to wise guys in this house.

  Junior: Is it possible to be a wise girl? Janet’s not eating anything.

  Janet: Am, too.

  Senior: That’s enough. Eat your dinner. No more talking.

  That kind of family interaction has made thousands of psychotherapists wealthy.

  Forty Years and Twenty-Eight Days Later

  Now, let’s fast-forward and listen to a contemporary family dinner conversation featuring Dad, Mom, Josh, and Abigail.

  Dad: What’s playing on your iPod, Abby?

  Abby [Bobs her head to the tune. She does not hear Dad.]

  Dad [louder]: Abby!

  Abby [looking up, annoyed]: What? Can’t you see I’m listening to my music, Dad?

  Dad: What are you listening to?

  Abby [now looking really annoyed]: Black Eyed Peas. Why?

  Dad: Because it’s impolite to listen to music at the table. Your mother and I would like to talk to you.

  Abby: Why?

  Dad: Josh, put that thing down!

  Josh [lowering his Nintendo DS, which features a fast-moving game in which guys blow each other up]: Why?

  Mom: Look, you two. We are having dinner as a family. This is family time.

  Abby: I’m not hungry.

  Josh: I’m not, either.

  Dad: Well, you are still going to sit here and talk to us.

  Abby: I have nothing to say.

  Josh: I’m bored.

  Dad: What did you do today, Abby?

  Abby: Listened to music, texted my friends, played with my Wii.

  Mom: How about you, Josh, what did you do?

  Josh: Played Madden NFL on the computer, watched G.I. Joe on video, played with my DS.

  Dad: Pass the potatoes.

  My father passed away in 1986, and I cannot imagine him dealing with the high-tech age. He was a Depression-era kid and a naval officer during World War II; all of his experiences came from face-to-face human interaction. He even hated talking on the phone. In fact, I never saw my father on the phone for more than thirty seconds at a time unless he was yelling at some guy trying to sell him something. Then he took his time.

  When I called home from El Salvador or Northern Ireland or someplace, he’d get on the line for about twenty seconds before inevitably saying, “Here’s your mother.”

  By contrast, he’d sit on the patio in the summer and chat for hours with his friends. If he could see you, my father would talk to you.

  Children today still respond to other children, but machines are curtailing their ability to converse and think creatively in person-to-person situations, as I have stated. Getting a verbal description beyond “cool” and “awesome” from a kid is no easy task for an adult. The truth is that children are bored with conversation because things aren’t blowing up or rhyming (rap music). Again, this kind of youth life experience is changing America big-time, and few understand how it will eventually play out when today’s kids become adults.

  But one thing is virtually certain: Americans are losing the ability to think critically, and that will make it much easier for manipulative, charismatic politicians to gain power.

  For parents and grandparents, the situation is frustrating because many of the things that we enjoyed in our youth are now obsolete and have been banished from society. Not good. Playground competition, creative game playing, Monopoly on rainy days—all of these things brought some maturity and a lot of joy, at least to me.

  I’ve actually bribed kids to sample pond ice hockey, one-on-one basketball, and stickball against brick walls. For my trouble, I mostly get eye rolls and deep sighs. The machines are always calling these kids.

  Sadly, there is little you can do about any of this, and truthfully, you shouldn’t waste too much time trying to stem the tide. The kids will interact with machines, they will. But if you’re a parent, design definite boundaries for your children about what they can and can’t do in their free time. It will be tough, but you have to demand that they converse or at least listen to your words at the dinner table or elsewhere. Don’t allow your children to become zombies dependent on cheap stimulation. These machines and the moronic stuff on them are addictive, and you, the parent, have an obligation to limit the stimulation in a fair way and keep your children clean.

  Age-Old Wisdom

  But things are not completely bleak. If you are articulate and well-read, your place in America is getting stronger no matter what age you are. If you know how to relate to people, how to engage them in conversation, your potential for prospering is greatly enhanced. With some hesitation, I’ll use m
yself as an example.

  I’ve been anchoring The O’Reilly Factor for fourteen years, and I am sixty-one years old. I keep myself in reasonable shape, but there is no question that I’m in the AARP zone. Years ago, I might have been pushed out by some hot-shot younger anchor. Remember, a younger Dan Rather (who turned out to be a Pinhead) replaced an older Walter Cronkite as the anchor of the CBS Evening News in March 1981. Cronkite was forced out of his job even though he was performing well. The CBS suits wrongly calculated that Rather would attract younger viewers and refresh the franchise. The result, as we now know, was disastrous. The CBS Evening News has never recovered.

  Here’s proof that I’m a card-carrying member of the AARP, and proud of it!

  Author’s Collection

  But that most likely would not happen today. There are few hot-shot younger people in TV news now because their experience and education just can’t measure up to those of us who worked in the golden age of network news.