Bill O'Reilly on Friendship
david ford
Out for You?_ (Broadway Books, 2003). This text or something
extremely similar to it appeared in "Parade" (21 Sept 2003),
4-5, and is taken off the web:
Are you looking out only for yourself, for Numero Uno? If you are,
if you are a poster child for "The Me Generation," I have something
to tell you: You are in dire trouble.
Here's the "no-spin" truth: America and France lead the world in
self-absorption. The U.S.A. is the most powerful country the world
has ever seen, but our culture has been polluted by the "where's
mine?" theme. We see it everywhere-- in constant advertising about
possessions and good times, and products to make us look as buff
and alluring as possible. The human brain is not fully formed until
age 25, but by age 3 the American brain is already screaming, "I
want stuff!"
This addiction to acquisition takes a lot of money, energy and
thought. And all of that thought is about you.
"So what?" you say. "So freakin' what? What's wrong with taking
care of Number One?" Well, listen up: If you're always thinking
about yourself, you'll rarely look out for anyone else. And you'll
soon run out of what you must have for a full, rich life: People who
will look out for you.
Generous people will not associate with selfish jerks. To have a
friend, you have to be a friend. That's an old Irish saying, and at
times the Irish do know what they are talking about.
Only good people can really look out for you. Bad people are
looking out for themselves. They will pretend to have your best
interests at heart but will kick you in the head when your usefulness
to them expires. But a good friend will last a lifetime. And that
person will look out for you if you demonstrate that you are worth
looking out for.
It doesn't matter who you are. If you can't get quality people to look
out for you, you are in trouble. Consider the singer Mariah Carey,
who has money, fame and power. Here's what she told a writer
after her emotional meltdown: "No one was looking out for the
human being inside the machine that pays everybody." She learned
the hard way.
So my premise is simple: Before you can find help in this world,
you have to develop qualities that are respected by good people. If
you are selfish, shallow, money-grubbing, manipulative, callous,
violent, petty, envious, gossipy or self-destructive, you'll soon be on
your own. Nobody will ever look out for you, with the possible
exception of your mom. She is compelled by nature to do so.
Cultivating and nurturing good friends is not easy. Every two years,
I put together a trip for a bunch of my male friends. Some people
are amazed that I can get a couple of dozen guys to show up in a
place like Hawaii for a few laughs and a little hell-raising. But
these are people who know the value of friendship. I have spent a
lifetime assembling these friends, and I know they look out for me
just as I look out for them.
So why have I bothered tracking these guys through my life?
What's in it for me? Well, the answer is: nothing much in worldly
terms. I've been very lucky and never had to ask anyone for
anything substantial. But the men-- and women-- I deal with as
friends all have attributes that I admire: They all are honest, so I can
get perspective and a no spin opinion on any subject I need. And if
I ever lost my job or became very ill, I know these guys would help
me in any way they could.
It is amazing to me that many of us just cannot tell the good people
from the bad. I have seen a lot of marriages break up, and I'm
always surprised that the aggrieved party didn't see it coming.
Selfish, manipulative people usually are not subtle. Their character
is obvious to any perceptive person. The problem is that most of us
do not see people for what they really are-- we see them for what we
want them to be.
How many times have you seen friends or family attach themselves
to just the worst person this side of Saddam Hussein? Everybody
knows the person is pond scum except them. And then-- when the
bad person finally turns on your friend or your family member-- he
or she is stunned, betrayed, bewildered.
I use the term "weasel" a lot when talking about untrustworthy
people. Weasels are small carnivores that hunt alone at night and
viciously kill their weaker prey. There are legions of human
weasels in America today. Here's some advice on how to spot a
weasel: Watch how your new friend or lover treats people other than
you. If he's divorced, find out why. If she's dysfunctional, run like
hell, even if she does look like Heidi Klum.
Adults rarely change unless desperately motivated to do so. No
matter how good, kind, generous and loving you are, the heavy odds
are that an emotionally damaged person will remain damaged, and a
bad person will remain bad no matter what you do. Walk briskly
away from destructive people and find generous people to hang out
with. Then you'll have a chance of finding an effective support
system in life.
If you embrace honest, caring and strong people, I can almost
guarantee that you will have accomplished many positive things on
this Earth. But if you go it alone or book passage on the ship of
fools, expect one of those fools to toss you over the side when the
big waves come.
And if you still don't believe me, then listen to George Washington,
the father of the greatest country the world has ever seen. George is
my go-to guy on "looking out for you" quotes.
"Associate yourself with men of quality if you esteem your own
reputation, for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company."
You tell them, G.W. Bad company will never look out for you.
Blazing Laser
wrote:
>Below is an excerpt from Bill O'Reilly's book _Who's Looking
>Out for You?_ (Broadway Books, 2003). This text or something
>extremely similar to it appeared in "Parade" (21 Sept 2003),
>4-5, and is taken off the web:
You know, it always surprises me to hear thing people say that are
completely 180 degrees away from their own behavior. And how people
will let them get away with it.
I'm thinking of religious leaders in the US who are the self-appointed
arbiters of our morality, but who support the worst kind of immorality
on Wall Street and in government in order to maintain a power
structure that advantages them. Or warmongering 'chickenhawks' who
did all they could to avoid serving in a war themselves. Or talk-show
hosts railing against 'casual' users of illegal drugs while they are
addicted to drugs themselves. Or staunch anti-abortion warriors who
readily admit in interviews that if their own daughter wanted to get
an abortion they'd support her in that decision.
I can't disagree much with what O'Reilly says here (actually his
ghostwriter says it. At least Al Franken writes his own material).
But I don't understand why anyone would pay such a person any heed in
matters of morality and honesty. He pretends to be 'fair and
balanced' but actually shills for one party over another. People who
spend half an hour watching his show in the evening are actually less
informed on the issues!
O'Reilly is sort of like % in this newsgroup in that he does
everything he can to draw criticism and disapproval and then complains
of the response he gets. (I even have more respect for %, at least
he's honest about it.)
He even promised that if President Bush's charges about weapons of
mass distruction in Iraq proved false he would apologize and would
never trust Bush again. He made that promise on national TV and then
broke it--not with apologies but vitriolic comments about how the
other side is trying to destroy him. Who would want to be a friend of
someone who thinks so little of his own promises?
The Danimal
> He even promised that if President Bush's charges about weapons of
> mass distruction in Iraq proved false he would apologize and would
> never trust Bush again. He made that promise on national TV and then
> broke it--not with apologies but vitriolic comments about how the
> other side is trying to destroy him. Who would want to be a friend of
> someone who thinks so little of his own promises?
In what sense has he broken that promise? Weapons of mass
destruction have failed to show up *so far*, and while Bush et al.
probably expected evidence to turn up faster, it's interesting to
note that a lot of other things have not yet shown up in Iraq, not
the least of which is Saddam Hussein and the 5,000+
members of the Iraqi resistance that the Coalition can't even
identify yet.
If the U.S. military can't even tell who is shooting at them and
setting off bombs, it's pretty clear the number of things they
know about Iraq is a lot less than the number of things they
don't know.
The guerrillas who are shooting guns and rockets and setting
off bombs are actively revealing evidence about themselves every
day, and the U.S. military can't even figure out where *those*
guys live. How much longer will it take to check every nook and
cranny of Iraq for weapons that might be hiding somewhere quietly?
Consider, if Saddam Hussein is out there somewhere coordinating
any aspect of the armed resistance, there must be all sorts of
chain-of-command links back to him. Those links are potentially
traceable.
In contrast, if some cache of chemical warheads is buried out in
the desert, you'd have to excavate all of Iraq to find it, unless
someone who knows where it is tells you.
Granted, it seems obvious by now that the specific evidence
Team Bush used to justify the war hasn't quite panned out, but
a really comprehensive search won't be possible until the fighting
in Iraq actually ends.
In any case, anybody who doesn't like America's Endless Petroleum
War is free to stop driving gaswasters at any time.
-- the Danimal
Blazing Laser
I said:
>> He even promised that if President Bush's charges about weapons of
>> mass distruction in Iraq proved false he would apologize and would
>> never trust Bush again. He made that promise on national TV and then
>> broke it--not with apologies but vitriolic comments about how the
>> other side is trying to destroy him. Who would want to be a friend of
>> someone who thinks so little of his own promises?
On 14 Nov 2003 16:05:34 -0800, dmo...@mfm.com (The Danimal) wrote:
>In what sense has he broken that promise?
In the sense that he has not done what he promised to do. 8^)
> Weapons of mass
>destruction have failed to show up *so far*, and while Bush et al.
>probably expected evidence to turn up faster, it's interesting to
>note that a lot of other things have not yet shown up in Iraq, not
>the least of which is Saddam Hussein and the 5,000+
>members of the Iraqi resistance that the Coalition can't even
>identify yet.
Oh, it's so easy to say "Well we just haven't found them -yet-." You
can say that forever.
Before the invasion our vice president said we knew "with absolute
certainty" that Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. The UN weapons
inspection team pointed out that a nuclear weapons program could
hardly be hidden, it would require big buildings that could not be
hidden from a satellite, much less a team of inspectors on the ground
allowed to travel the country unhindered.
Our VP and sec'y of defense both said they knew -for certain- of
Saddams WMP and even where they were. Of course they couldn't share
this information with the UN inspection team 'for security purposes'.
Look, they lied! A lie is a lie, even if made by a Republican. These
people simply have no shame whatsoever.
Everyone in the world knows the Bush team lied, and twisted
intelligence to justify the decision that had already been made to
invade Iraq. Everyone except for the GOP faithful. O'Reilly is
completely unable to defend himself of the charge that he is no more
than a shill for a political party. Actually he doesn't even try;
whenever the subject comes up he storms away in a huff.
This is not the newsgroup to debate these things. I just wanted to
make the point that I'm not ready to listen to lectures on honesty and
morality from the least honest and moral bunch of people in recent
memory.
Gorath
does indeed need therapy. As much as I dislike him, I also pity him.
Blazing Laser <blazin...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:<96vcrvkgoe4t6v35o...@4ax.com>...
Donald L Ferrt
Bill O'Reilly's youth T-Shirt:
IzBeyond
>This is not the newsgroup to debate these things. I just wanted to
>make the point that I'm not ready to listen to lectures on honesty and
>morality from the least honest and moral bunch of people in recent
>memory.
Don't go there! At least G.W. knows what "it" is. If you don't want to have to
defend yourself then I suggest that you refrain from making pointless points?
And you are correct, this is not the forum to discuss politics. As for Bill
Riley, he is no different than Tom, Ted, or Bill! He will do anything including
bashing G.W. to keep his Public opinion. Shame on conservatives for buying into
his prostitution! They need to be Hannitized :).