Bill O’Reilly’s Flying Circus
Four years ago, I was a guest on the “O’Reilly Factor,” part of a panel discussion on the income gap. It was a wonderfully surreal moment that, alas, I have yet to repeat. I just stumbled upon a transcript of the show. Below is a pretty funny bit that I believe is short enough that I can legally quote it.
Missing here is O’Reilly’s assertion that Cornell University is a socialist plot, “Parade” editor and DNC Treasurer Andrew Tobias inviting me to join the Democratic party, and, finally, Mr. O’Reilly brusquely ending the segment and announcing that Mel Gibson would be next after the commercials.
O’REILLY: OK, but here’s the deal. And you ought to know this, too, Shaun, is that for many years, I didn’t make any money. OK? And I lived in my younger time in a very frugal environment. OK? So I don’t believe that the government has the right, now that I’m successful, due to hard work and some luck, to come into my house and take my money and give it to other people, and they don’t even know what these people are going to do with it. That’s wrong, morally wrong.
…
RICHMAN: Are you living in poverty as a result of this 50 percent [tax rate]?
O’REILLY: Am I living in poverty? No, but what right do you or anybody else have, even in France, to take other peoples’ money and give it to somebody you don’t know? What right do you have, morally?
RICHMAN: It’s a basic system of fairness. Now when you weren’t making that money…
O’REILLY: Yes.
RICHMAN: When you were living in dire straits, wouldn’t it have been nicer to have a system where…
O’REILLY: No, I wouldn’t have taken a dime.
RICHMAN: You wouldn’t have taken a dime?
O’REILLY: No. Absolutely not.
RICHMAN: You would have died of tuberculosis?
O’REILLY: That’s right. And I wouldn’t have kids unless I could support them. That’s right, because I don’t believe in taking other peoples’ stuff and giving it to me. I won’t even take Social Security when I’m older. I’ll give it back or I’ll give it to charity. You see? That’s where you guys are wrong. You’re taking stuff, you’re making value judgments. You’re giving it to other people and you don’t know what those other people are going to do. That’s wrong. Am I wrong?
Why did they never invite me back?
My, Oh MySpace
This phenomenom of “social networking” websites certainly seems a lot odder when described by the mainstream media. To me and my friends, sites like Friendster and MySpace are harmlessly kooky ways to keep in touch and embarass each other with sarcastic tributary testimonials. They sound a lot more sinister when described by the AP in this wire story on a rash of statutory rape cases in Connecticut:
MySpace, one of several popular social networking sites, is a free service that allows people to create Web sites that can be personalized with information, pictures and movies. Searching for someone is as easy as typing the name of a high school and the photographic results are instantaneous.
…
Some teens keep their personal profiles scant, aimed only at their friends. Others describe their likes and dislikes, from the mundane to the profane, and encourage people to send them messages.“That is a perpetrator’s dream come true,” said Middletown Police Sgt. Bill McKenna.
Worse is the news that Massachusetts’ recent gay bar murderer left behind a personal MySpace profile, as did the ex-girlfriend that he murdered. Both profiles, as of this writing, live on beyond the expiration of their authors. Hers more sympathetic for her role as victim, her vain attempts to disguise advanced age, a blog posting sarcastically titled “oh..yes…plz stalk me, i love it” (someone – perhaps the murderer – was attempting to log in and steal her identity) and the worried comment written by a friend (after she was already killed) saying simply “i love you Jenn! I miss you a lot. I hope everything will be okay =/. I love you.”
My friend, Alan Amalgamated, jokes (half-jokes, really) that when fascism finally comes to America, they won’t have to torture us to get us to name names. We’ve already done that, voluntarily, on MySpace. As it is, my coworkers use MySpace to research members of the bargaining unit during organizing drives and journalists, it seems, search for the names of criminal newsmakers there before going to press.
I really don’t like MySpace. I prefer Friendster, because it’s a simpler, cleaner way to maintain a collection of profiles of friends I rarely see, and the testimonials are more thought-out and composed for posterity. It’s silly, but it’s a silliness that I control and limit.
MySpace – pawn of Rupert Murdoch – is superficial, voyeuristic, utterly commercial and totally juvenile. It aims to be a totality of interweb activity: exhibitionist instant messaging, blogarhea, rate my photo whoredom, music and video filesharing – you name it. It’s your life, youngster, complete with corporate sponsorship. For Gahd’s sake. Get the hell out, before it’s too late!
Citizen Roe
In another lifetime, Norma McCorvey was the anonymous Jane Roe who allowed herself to be used by the pro-choice movement as the plaintiff in the case that established the constitutional right to privacy and abortion, Roe vs. Wade.
In the intervening years, the radical right violated her right to privacy, tracked Ms. McCorvey down and exploited her own ambivalence over her personal tragedy and its use in national policy debate. They turned Jane Roe into a pro-lifer, as if the simple change of heart of a turncoat would invalidate the legal principles of Roe vs. Wade, and convince all women not to have abortions.
Since that “change of heart,” Ms. McCorvey has played a farcical role in the abortion debate, not unlike the titular (anti)hero of the movie, Citizen Ruth. The New York Times has dug her up one more time for an article published today, on a drug for ulcers that could also be used as a black market abortificant when the Roberts court inevitably overturns Roe Vs. Wade. Here’s what the erstwhile Roe had to say:
“When women start using these self-induced drugs, and start seeing body parts in their potty, they’re going to go bananas,” Miss McCorvey said. “And it’s going to be horrible.”
The Times did not identify any medical or scientific credentials for Ms. McCorvey, nor did it really identify her for speaking for any organization. Nope. Guess they just decided to interview a puppet for the fun of it.
The Whole World Should Be Watching
Over a quarter of a million people filled the streets of Washington yesterday to protest the war in Iraq and the Bush regime, but our nation’s corporate media has given the event scant coverage. The demonstration itself, with a large turnout from labor, was broad and impressive.
There is much debate in the anti-war movement about the value of these large mobilizations. The side that I am on argues that these are the most visible manifestation of the movement against war and Bush that we can muster, and that there is an additional value in buoying our spirits by bringing so many of us together.
Another side argues that we’ve been marching by the millions against this stupid war since before it began, failed to stop it then and have since been losing momentum and turning out fewer people (yesterday was the largest turnout in a year). It’s time for new tactics and strategies, they say, and I don’t necessarily disagree.
The problem with a march on Washington that the media ignores is that it’s like a tree falling in a forest, with no CNN corespondent there to ask the tree why it chose today to fall and then interview three anti-tree-falling counter protesters to ask why they think the tree should keep standing.
My friend John Nichols argues in his book, “It’s the Media, Stupid!” (co-written by Bob McChesney) that the left should prioritize media reform amongst our many issues since the media has such an overbearing influence on public discourse and debate that they can effectively pretend we don’t exist no matter how many hundreds of thousands os us march in the streets. It’s on days like today, scanning the papers for any coverage of yesterday’s huge demonstration, that his argument should have a special resonance.
Today and tomorrow, dedicated activists remain in Washington to engage in acts of civil disobedience in order to ratchet up the pressure against the administration and its war. Most likely, they’ll block a few traffic intersections and maybe drop a banner or two from public places. Talk about overused and ineffective tactics.
I’ve believed for a few years now that our comrades who engage in direct action should focus on the headquarters and newsrooms of major media companies. Let’s see if NBC news can ignore the antiwar movement if activists block the entrance to their news studios and prevent Brian Williams from sitting in his comfy chair. Let’s see the NY Times ignore protests and arrests in their lobby. How about simultaneous CD’s and banner drops outside the various “window on the world” studies of the morning newscasts?
Remember “the whole world is watching?” Well, it’s not. Not anymore, and not yet again.