Bill O'Reilly, Will You PLEASE Shut the Hell Up?

[For the unaware, I'm adopting pro wrestler Chris Jericho's signature catchphrase.]

I announced in my blog some time back I stopped watching Fox News, except on special occasions like election day coverage or the occasional State of the Union address, some time back. It has nothing to do with the conventional leftist media attacks; Fox News does a better job balancing its perspective than most of the other national media (e.g., I've done a number of posts parsing through "Meet the Press" transcripts; moderator Gregory is particularly unbalanced, almost prosecuting center-right guests while largely lobbing softballs at Democrats and rarely following up weak preditable responses--he'll often even suggest a talking point for them.) I found a lot of the FNC coverage predictable, redundant, and fairly superficial (e.g., largely rehearsed political spin soundbites); now, of course, they have a compelling market share, and they know their audience. I was wanting something more substantive, maybe some real economists, WSJ content, things like what might appear in my blog.

I still subscribe to some FNC podcasts, like Fox News Sunday, Red Eye, and Bill O'Reilly Talking Points Memo. Occasionally I've embedded Fox News content although I've sometimes run into technical issues embedding videos, not necessarily specific to FNC; I'm not sure if the problems are with Blogger, the embed scripts, players, etc., content restrictions, etc. I've occasionally been able to work around problematic embed scripts, but generally it's not been worth my time and effort to work around them. Youtube content is relatively easy to embed, although of course (like any source) the channel sources can withdraw content, Youtube might take it down, say if it violates their or copyright holder IP rights. I try to use official sources (e.g., American Idol) if they publish their video on Youtube, although some channels can request that embedding be disabled, so you can view content only on Youtube. It's not unusual, though, for viewers to record say content on their TV and upload it onto Youtube. Quite often the original source will discover the posting and complain to Youtube. Occasionally I'll tip the reader off, saying the embedded video was available at the time of the post; my primary motivation for embedding videos is for the convenience of readers. This is based on some applied psychology research I read from Patricia Wright, suggesting in effect that readers may not want to go to the bother of opening another tab or browser window to process auxiliary content. For me, I want my reader to drop down to the next item, not have to navigate back to my webpage.

Now Bill O'Reilly is a populist conservative whom often drives me nuts spinning conspiracy theories over rising oil/gas prices; he also seems to have a thin skin over what leftist/mainstream critics say about him; don't get me wrong--I, like most writers or researchers, don't like being contradicted or the derisive tone typically accompanying the message. I would like to have millions of readers to my blog and persuade them all to my point of view. But, say, if some argues that I'm a racist because I think Obama is a rotten President, they're not worth taking seriously. I don't feel the need to defensively point out some of my best friends (including two of my references) are black or in 1994 I applied to and was offered a position of a historically black Louisiana university; these people don't know me personally. They're just pissed I don't agree with them. When people resort to ad hominem attacks, they are actually conceding the argument.

From August 7:

The administration continues to study the situation, although today there were indications that some bombing is being considered.The Obama administration well understands most Americans do not want any re-involvement in Iraq and are tired of sacrificing for foreign nations. But that is foolish thinking.  You don't walk away from a dire threat; you confront it in a smart way.The ISIS army could be downgraded by using American air power and drones... the ISIS threat extends far beyond Baghdad.  By hiding behind Iraq's chaos, the U.S.A. is allowing Islamic terrorism to gain enormous power. But we can diminish the fighting ability of ISIS.  And we should because they will come after us eventually. There is no question that America looks weak in the face of the jihadist threat and Putin's aggression.

First, let me acknowledge as of the date of this post, Obama has decided at least on some limited military strikes against ISIS targets in northern Iraq. But O'Reilly would probably argue too little, too late, so let's deal with the argument based on its merits.

Second, O'Reilly is purely speculating (not engaging in "news journalism") about the Obama White House; I do understand the point about Obama dithering on Iraq and the vulnerability to certain religious minorities to ISIS genocidal actions.

But let me point out to O'Reilly that there are a vast number of theoretical challenges to the US government, foreign and domestic. ISIS has not attacked the US, and the President's scope of military engagement mostly reflects attacks on the homeland. The US is not in a state of war with ISIS. I don't know why the Administration took as long as it did to make its decision, but it could reflect (hopefully) the legality of said engagement. Second, Iraq and its regional allies have Air Forces of their own; why haven't they been taking the fight to ISIS? We know about the existing tragedy because of news reports. Why does the US have to pick up the slack because Iraq's government is failing in its fundamental mission of protecting the people? We are not the world's policeman; we don't have the money or the manpower. Where do we draw the line? At what atrocity in which country?  Obama doesn't have that Constitutional or Congressional mandate.

I'm not about to dignify O'Reilly's sense of national machismo; I'm not concerned about America "looking weak". There are good things about patience before pulling the trigger; there can be opportunity costs or unintended consequences to America's intervening in internal Iraqi matters. But O'Reilly gets the cart before the horse here: if we attack ISIS, we need to be prepared for possible blowback. As a Catholic, O'Reilly should be familiar with the Serenity Prayer: we need to understand we can't always be there if and when the next minority comes under attack. This is not our responsibility; it is an issue of regional importance, e.g., to Turkey which may find itself the destination of refugees.

And as we saw on 9/11, these fanatics are not just content with brutalizing their own people.  They want to kill us and other infidels all over the world. Talking Points has said for years that American power is the last hope in defeating worldwide terrorism. Who will do it if we don't?  

Al Qaeda declared war on the US in 1996 because we had troops based in Saudi Arabia, which offended fundamentalist sensibilities.  We need to dial back our international obligations; if other regions don't step up, we'll run ourselves ragged playing global Whac-a-Mole.

From August 4:

The Economist Magazine recently asked a provocative question.  What would America fight for?  In the body of the analysis, The Economist editorialized: "Mr. Obama has still made a difficult situation worse in two ways.  First, he has broken the cardinal rule of superpower deterrence: you must keep your word.  In Syria he drew a red line -- he would punish Bashar Assad if he used chemical weapons.  The Syrian dictator did, and Mr. Obama did nothing.  In response to Russia's aggression, he threatened fierce sanctions, only to unveil underwhelming ones. ... [T]he cumulative message is weakness."

First, ask me if I care what the Economist Magazine editorial staff thinks. Second, it's clear what motivated Obama to scale back on Syria: the British Parliament decided not to commit its own forces, and Obama, who did not have a Constitutional or Congressional mandate, decided not to go it alone. Third, I'm not a fan of economic sanctions/warfare against another country, which risks possible confrontation (case in point: Pearl Harbor). Weakness? No. He should not have bluffed in the first place, and he lost credibility when they called his bluff. Personally, as I mentioned above, I would rather have seen him worry about unintended consequences and opportunity costs.

We are now living in a society that is largely secular, where selfish pursuits and narcissistic behavior are on the rise. The crusade to legalize marijuana is almost hysterical -- pot proponents almost making it a constitutional issue that we Americans have the inherent right to inebriation by using drugs because alcohol is legal.

I agree with the first statement (see my recent "If I Were Pope" essay), but I disagree that the State should "fix" it. I think we address these through private sector institutions like family, church and community No, we don't have a "right to inebriation", but we do have a right to be left alone, and even St. Thomas Aquinas pointed out we should limit legal restrictions on the vices to things fundamental to society, like murder and theft.

The left screams about income inequality when its policies are downgrading job development and failing to help the poor. That means more dependence on big government, which is only too willing to provide excuses for individual failure. Thus the have nots demand more from the haves because somehow they are entitled to other people's money. And the Obama administration stokes that fire. Rather than laying out a road map of self-reliance, liberal politicians and the media encourage social justice and income redistribution.

He's absolutely spot on here.

What we have now is declining power overseas that has emboldened those who attacked us on 9/11. An enormous debt that is not being controlled. A porous southern border that the feds cannot solve, and a population of 320 million, many of whom are apathetic and ill-informed -- stimulated only by individual pursuits even if those pursuits harm them.
I've been in the media business for about 40 years.  I have never seen America weaker than it is today.

Absolute rubbish. There have been breakthroughs in technology and healthcare, with people living longer than ever. It is true that the debt (and worse, unfunded liabilities) are out of control, but there are ways to make them more manageable. The current immigration crisis can be managed by liberalized immigration reform going way beyond the Senate bill, including temporary work programs. We can make federal policy less morally hazarous. I disagree with Bill on the indulgent lifestyle getting worse; it's bad but young adults were engaged in free sex, booze, and drugs before I was a teenager. I do think America's challenges are worsening because of a Titanic State, which is all but ungovernable, much heavier than it was in my salad days.