A Challenge For Bill O'Reilly

[NATO AIR]

one he would be wise to take up.

The latest from Nick Kristof in the NYT

http://coalitionfordarfur.blogspot.com/2005/12/darfur-challenge-for-bill-oreilly.html

Let us all pray for Bill O'Reilly.

Let us pray that Mr. O'Reilly will understand that the Christmas spirit isn't about hectoring people to say ''Merry Christmas,'' rather than ''Happy Holidays,'' but about helping the needy.

Let us pray that Mr. O'Reilly will use his huge audience and considerable media savvy to save lives and fight genocide, instead of to vilify those he disagrees with. Let him find inspiration in Jesus, rather than in the Assyrians.

Finally, let's pray that Mr. O'Reilly and other money-changers in the temple will donate the funds they raise exploiting Christmas -- covering the nonexistent ''War on Christmas'' rakes in viewers and advertising -- to feed the hungry and house the homeless.

Amen.

Alas, not all prayers can be answered. Fox News Channel's crusade against infidels who prefer generic expressions like ''Happy Holidays'' included 58 separate segments in just a five-day period.

After I suggested in last Sunday's column that a better way to honor the season might be to stand up to genocide in Darfur (a calamity that Mr. O'Reilly has ignored), Mr. O'Reilly denounced me on his show as a ''left-wing ideologue.'' Bless you, Mr. O'Reilly, and Merry Christmas to you, too!

Later in the show, Mr. O'Reilly described us print journalists in general as ''a bunch of vicious S.O.B.'s.'' Bless you again, Mr. O'Reilly; I'll pray harder for the Christmas spirit to soften your pugnacious soul.

Look, I put up a ''Christmas tree,'' rather than a ''holiday tree,'' and I'm sure Mr. O'Reilly is right that political correctness leads to absurd contortions this time of year. But when you've seen what real war does, you don't lightly use the word to describe disagreements about Christmas greetings. And does it really make sense to offer 58 segments on political correctness and zero on genocide?

Perhaps I'm particularly sensitive to religious hypocrites because I've spent a chunk of time abroad watching Muslim versions of Mr. O'Reilly -- demagogic table-thumpers who exploit public religiosity as a cynical ploy to gain attention and money. And I always tell moderate Muslims that they need to stand up to blustery blowhards -- so today, I'm taking my own advice.

Like the fundamentalist Islamic preachers, Mr. O'Reilly is a talented showman, and my sense is that his ranting is a calculated performance. The couple of times I've been on his show, he was mild mannered and amiable until the camera light went on -- and then he burst into aggrieved indignation, because he knew it made good theater.

If Mr. O'Reilly wants to find a Christmas cause, he should invite guests from Catholic Relief Services, World Vision or the National Association of Evangelicals -- among the many faith-based organizations that are doing heroic work battling everything from river blindness to sex trafficking. Indeed, the real victims of Mr. O'Reilly are the authentic religious conservatives, because some viewers falsely assume that ill-informed bombast characterizes the entire religious right.

(I'm tempted to think that Mr. O'Reilly is actually a liberal plant, meant to discredit conservatives. Think about it. Who would be a better plant than a self-righteous bully in the style of Father Coughlin or Joe McCarthy? What better way to caricature the right than by having Mr. O'Reilly urge on air that the staff of Air America be imprisoned: ''Dissent, fine; undermining, you're a traitor. Got it? So, all those clowns over at the liberal radio network, we could incarcerate them immediately. Will you have that done, please? Send over the F.B.I. and just put them in chains, because they, you know, they're undermining everything.'')

Some authentic religious conservatives are embarrassed by television phonies. Cal Thomas, the conservative Christian columnist, warned: ''The effort by some cable TV hosts and ministers to force commercial establishments into wishing everyone a 'Merry Christmas' might be more objectionable to the One who is the reason for the season than the 'Happy Holidays' mantra required by some store managers.''

So I have a challenge for Mr. O'Reilly: If you really want to defend traditional values, then come with me on a trip to Darfur. I'll introduce you to mothers who have had their babies clubbed to death in front of them, to teenage girls who have been gang-raped and then mutilated -- and to the government-armed thugs who do these things.

You'll have to leave your studio, Bill. You'll encounter pure evil. If you're like me, you'll be scared. If you try to bully some of the goons in Darfur, they'll just hack your head off. But you'll also meet some genuine conservative Christians -- aid workers who live the Gospel instead of sputtering about it -- and you'll finally be using your talents for an important cause.

So, Bill, what'll it be? Will you dare travel to a real war against Christmas values, in which the victims aren't offended shoppers but terrified children thrown on bonfires? I'm waiting to hear.

 

[Adam's Apple]

O'Reilly responded to Kristof's column on a recent program. If you missed it, you can probably find the transcript at Fox News. O'Reilly's ending counterpunch was that he (O'Reilly) probably gives more to charity in a single year than Kristof has in his entire life. Wouldn't "inquiring minds" like to know the score on that one?

 

[The ClayTaurus]

O'Reilly responded to Kristof's column on a recent program. If you missed it, you can probably find the transcript at Fox News. O'Reilly's ending counterpunch was that he (O'Reilly) probably gives more to charity in a single year than Kristof has in his entire life. Wouldn't "inquiring minds" like to know the score on that one?

Yes, that was a masterful job of turning that all around into promotion of his website and I'm better than you because I give more money to charity than you posturing. That whole talking point redefined pompous. That's not to say that he doesn't have a point, but damn, can one man get any more full of himself?

 

[dmp]

Yes, that was a masterful job of turning that all around into promotion of his website and I'm better than you because I give more money to charity than you posturing. That whole talking point redefined pompous. That's not to say that he doesn't have a point, but damn, can one man get any more full of himself?

The best gifts to charity are done anonymously. I knew a couple who'd take out money orders in the name of somebody who was needy. They would mail the $ from different places around the country and only include a typed note:

"Here's a gift. Please use this as God directs you!"

Those people gave for the right reasons.

Giving to EVER mention it to anyone - much less to millions of people - is likely giving for the 'wrong' reasons.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

The best gifts to charity are done anonymously. I knew a couple who'd take out money orders in the name of somebody who was needy. They would mail the $ from different places around the country and only include a typed note:

"Here's a gift. Please use this as God directs you!"

Those people gave for the right reasons.

Giving to EVER mention it to anyone - much less to millions of people - is likely giving for the 'wrong' reasons.

Like ego boosts.
Or self promotion.

He makes the occasional reasonable point, but God is he a braggart.

 

[theim]

Kristof is a leftist hack, has always been a leftist hack, and will in all probability continue to be a leftist hack. O'Reilly should have just brushed him off instead of getting into a "who's more charitable" fight.

EDITed for spelink

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Kristof is a leftist hack, has always been a leftist hack, and will in all probability continue to be a leftist hack. O'Reilly shout have just brushed him off instead of getting into a "whose more charitable" fight.

Kristof got what he wanted out of it; a petty response. Shame on Kristof for using his pretend care of the issues he spoke about to instigate a fight with O'Reilly. If Kristof really cared about helping the needy, he'd do it, instead of chastizing others. All in all, a sad representation of humanity right here.

 

[Bonnie]

Yes, that was a masterful job of turning that all around into promotion of his website and I'm better than you because I give more money to charity than you posturing. That whole talking point redefined pompous. That's not to say that he doesn't have a point, but damn, can one man get any more full of himself?

I think a lot of that has to do with showmanship. The same way Rush rubs people the wrong way when he says things like "talent on loan from God" . It's just their media egos playing to the crowd very tongue in cheek. I just don't read too much into that. Kristof on the other hand and those like him are really the ones who love to hear themselves talk and write in that smug way they have implying they are so much more savvy, brilliant and insightful than everyone else.

 

[Bonnie]

Kristof got what he wanted out of it; a petty response. Shame on Kristof for using his pretend care of the issues he spoke about to instigate a fight with O'Reilly. If Kristof really cared about helping the needy, he'd do it, instead of chastizing others. All in all, a sad representation of humanity right here.

Exactly!!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I think a lot of that has to do with showmanship. The same way Rush rubs people the wrong way when he says things like "talent on loan from God" . It's just their media egos playing to the crowd very tongue in cheek. I just don't read too much into that. Kristof on the other hand and those like him are really the ones who love to hear themselves talk and write in that smug way they have implying they are so much more savvy, brilliant and insightful than everyone else.

Did you happen to watch the talking point? I agree with you on the "Talent on Loan from God" thing, but in this particular talking point, it was blatant display of "I'm better than you becaues I donate more money than you so don't criticize me."

Tongue in cheek is fine and dandy. Hip hop does a lot of it. I think Howard Stern nailed it on the head when O'Reilly interviewed him - it's all to feed his ego, to make him go to sleep each night feeling like a king because he donates so much money. He's the poster boy for selfish philanthropy.

 

[Bonnie]

Did you happen to watch the talking point? I agree with you on the "Talent on Loan from God" thing, but in this particular talking point, it was blatant display of "I'm better than you becaues I donate more money than you so don't criticize me."

Tongue in cheek is fine and dandy. Hip hop does a lot of it. I think Howard Stern nailed it on the head when O'Reilly interviewed him - it's all to feed his ego, to make him go to sleep each night feeling like a king because he donates so much money. He's the poster boy for selfish philanthropy.

I had not seen that one so I'll take your word for it that O'Reilly was full of himself, which he can come across as at times. It sounds like this was a case in which he got tired of other's criticizing him and he retaliated in a way as to stoop to their level. Not very professional.

 

[The ClayTaurus]

I had not seen that one so I'll take your word for it that O'Reilly was full of himself, which he can come across as at times. It sounds like this was a case in which he got tired of other's criticizing him and he retaliated in a way as to stoop to their level. Not very professional.

Basically. One tried to score points through a hypocritical guilt trip, the other responded to it by bragging about how great he is, and promoting his website. Lovely people, both of them.

...I suppose this makes me a hypocrite as well... :cof:

 

[Bonnie]

Basically. One tried to score points through a hypocritical guilt trip, the other responded to it by bragging about how great he is, and promoting his website. Lovely people, both of them.

...I suppose this makes me a hypocrite as well... :cof:

Nope just a cynic from the peanut galleria.....

 

[Annie]

Nope just a cynic from the peanut galleria.....

Oh my! Clay is Jimmah?

 

[theim]

Oh my! Clay is Jimmah?

HE's that Dem operative! Busted Cahduh! :spank3:

 

[Annie]

HE's that Dem operative! Busted Cahduh! :spank3:

LOL! Same difference!

 

[The ClayTaurus]

Vanquished at every turn.

 

[Annie]

Vanquished at every turn.

Cheer up! You are a credit to a party that doesn't deserve your services.

 

[NATO AIR]

I think O'Reilly is a pompous ass who should be considered an embarassment to the conservative community. He is not a conservative, he's a prima donna. He's never been in danger, never risked his life to report a story, never shown anything more than a selfish greed for his own ego and his own needs.

Kristof is a liberal journalist/columnist for the NYT, he doesn't much like Bush, he was against the war in Iraq, etc etc. Nevertheless, aside from relative nonsense he tends to spout about social issues in the US (though he takes some interesting positions, such as advocating using DDT again, gun rights, freedom of religious expression, school choice, etc etc), he is absolutely crystal clear on issues of human rights; Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma, human trafficking/slavery, North Korea, Colombia, Iran (though he spent too much time with dissidents and ordinary Iranians to understand and report on the evils of the regime), Syria, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, China, etc etc. His record blows O'Reilly's out of the water on this matter.

As Cal Thomas rightfully noted, this "war on Christmas/counter war" is nonsense. We Christians have far better things to do (like say, challenging our nation's leadership on its refusal to get serious about Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma, North Korea, etc etc, helping stop the spread of AIDS across the world and spread the Gospel instead, etc etc) than argue over this nonsense.

Yet Fox and co. runs more than 100 segments on the war on Christmas, with perhaps one report on all the aforementioned hell-holes in the world, and perhaps one more report on the good deeds Christians are doing around the world.

Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Good on Kristof to call O'Reilly's bluff. He lacks the moral courage, the moral clarity and the professionalism to start reporting on a place like Darfur or North Korea.

And the American people who watch his show, unlike those of the USMB (who happen to be quite well-educated about these matters and the events in the world), remain ignorant and unknowing about these pointless tragedies.

 

[Annie]

I think O'Reilly is a pompous ass who should be considered an embarassment to the conservative community. He is not a conservative, he's a prima donna. He's never been in danger, never risked his life to report a story, never shown anything more than a selfish greed for his own ego and his own needs.

Kristof is a liberal journalist/columnist for the NYT, he doesn't much like Bush, he was against the war in Iraq, etc etc. Nevertheless, aside from relative nonsense he tends to spout about social issues in the US (though he takes some interesting positions, such as advocating using DDT again, gun rights, freedom of religious expression, school choice, etc etc), he is absolutely crystal clear on issues of human rights; Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma, human trafficking/slavery, North Korea, Colombia, Iran (though he spent too much time with dissidents and ordinary Iranians to understand and report on the evils of the regime), Syria, Egypt, Uzbekistan, Pakistan, China, etc etc. His record blows O'Reilly's out of the water on this matter.

As Cal Thomas rightfully noted, this "war on Christmas/counter war" is nonsense. We Christians have far better things to do (like say, challenging our nation's leadership on its refusal to get serious about Darfur, Zimbabwe, Burma, North Korea, etc etc, helping stop the spread of AIDS across the world and spread the Gospel instead, etc etc) than argue over this nonsense.

Yet Fox and co. runs more than 100 segments on the war on Christmas, with perhaps one report on all the aforementioned hell-holes in the world, and perhaps one more report on the good deeds Christians are doing around the world.

Bullshit. Utter bullshit. Good on Kristof to call O'Reilly's bluff. He lacks the moral courage, the moral clarity and the professionalism to start reporting on a place like Darfur or North Korea.

And the American people who watch his show, unlike those of the USMB (who happen to be quite well-educated about these matters and the events in the world), remain ignorant and unknowing about these pointless tragedies.

While I don't disagree with your ideals, I do wonder at trying to create a Nexis between War on Christmas and Darfur, or for that matter O'Reilly. I just don't get this straw man arguement.