Who's Looking Out for You?

Rating:
Summary: From the Pope to Jennifer Lopez
Review: If O'Reilly rubs you the wrong way, then so will this book. Personally I like his unique style and I like his perspective. This book, like his others, is a fast read. It covers everything from the Pope to Jennifer Lopez. However, a few of his opinions get too "pithy" in this one, sometimes they read like drive-by attacks which don't include the full background story on either side.

Bill offer advice--loads of it-- gathered from his rise in the television news industry and life in general. He's got an interesting story, he fesses up to a number of professional errors and you'll have a finer appreciation of him "making it" at last when you reach the end of this book.

Ironically O'Reilly, though he has at times been pretty critical of Dr. Phil, has written parts of "Whose Looking Out for You?" as if it's a self-help book. I like them both but perhaps the two of them are just too much alike to get along.

Having read all of his books, I think "The O'Reilly Factor" had the most meat in it. This one's a step below that but still smart, still enjoyable, enlightening and worthwhile.

Rating:
Summary: Wrong on Iraq war, inhuman on immigration
Review: This book depicts the state of mind of a busy unrealistic man who oversimplifies issues and contends that he knows better than the average Joe. Although, Mr. O'Reailly can associate with common people more than other conservative figures, yet he demonstrates meager grasp on vital political and social issues.

He is extreme and inhuman on immigration. He proposes military measures to protect the borders and extreme means to track illegal aliens to enforce the laws. He does not sense the conflict between the dire need for cheap and abundant foreign labor versus the high cost of implementing border patrol and internal immigration police. If there were sufficient manpower to protect the borders and hunt for undocumented aliens, then one can better use that manpower in agriculture labor, factory work, restaurant industry, instead of deploying them in the mountains and deserts to watch for illusive invaders. The rise of China as an economic giant has skipped Mr. O'Reilly's thinking regarding the benefit of greater manpower in elevating nations.

His support of the war on Iraq seems to stem from his ambition to remain mainstream. In his fifties, he still works two jobs; both are formidable on a man of this age. He does not hesitate to show on Howard Stern's pornography show or to use any means to reach his goals. His support of the war on Iraq demonstrates the hypocrisy of a writer who claims to know "who is looking out for average Joe". His shallow understanding of the Middle East history undermines his ability to discuss international affairs. He fails to realize that America's image in the middle east is viewed in the context of the not-so-far colonialism by Great Britain and France. The average man in the Middle East has clearer understanding of Washington's policy than this Yale's graduate and TV and Radio anchor. Iraqis are pleased with the end of Saddam, yet they know, in their deep heart, that America is not up for good. They see five million Palestinians in the refugee camps in Lebanon and many others Palestinians hiding from the brutal chase of the Arab governments to expel their brethren for fear of creating strong Palestinian parties within neighboring countries. If George Bush has any good intent then why did he welcome the dictator of Egypt in his Texas ranch, or the Saudi monarch, the Jordanian King? These are the worst enemies to the freedom and liberation of the Arab nations. A reasonable man would expect Mr. Bush to solve all the Middle East problems with just few telephone calls based on the might and glory of the USA. He could turn the tide of war to triumph if he calls on these three dictators to step down or otherwise. That would convince the oppressed millions in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan that USA means what it says.

Rating:
Summary: Will Bill look out for us with these?
Review: Mr. O'Reilly paints an overly optimistic picture of the United States as it pertains to the ordinary working woman or man. O'Reilly asserts he is from the working class but he no longer belongs to it given his success and access to the rich and powerful.
Here are some things for you, the reader, to ponder:
1)In America there is ALMOST free speech. For example, if you have a bad experience and feel you were shortchanged by a business or other entity, you cannot communicate your experience for the benefit of others in a testimonial ad that alerts them to potential problems with that outfit and be careful. Technology has created more diversity in communication but also more CONTROL of it.
2)If an individual has had problems, America is an unforgiving country. Services such as ChoicePoint, used by major firms, routinely do background checks which reveal problems in a person's past but not extenuating circumstances for them, giving a skewed and potentially very inaccurate picture of the character of that person. Banks also do this to people through the use of credit reporting and check services such as NCPS. In America, you don't have to authorize a background check but you are essentially forced under duress to oblige or not have a job. In America, institutions such as Fleet and Citizens banks or any number of employers routinely play God with the working person's destiny. If a bank blackballs you, you have a very difficult time buying food,clothing, medical care or providing for a family. I know of at least 1 person who had money taken from their bank account,was assessed considerable fees by the bank, refused to pay them and as a result the bank put their name into NCPS,blackballing them from opening another account within the next 5 years. That bank never did explain why the money was missing. In America, the financial system is designed to maximize control over the majority of the population with the capacity to ensure an individual's very life can be put at stake by a simple comment to an archiving and reporting body. How many lives have been destroyed by Equifax,NCPS, ChoicePoint and so many more?
3)Americans have no right to privacy! The U.S. Supreme court does not have the courage to make a stand and protect its citizens. With the current trend, the lives of Americans in the bedroom,at work, at play,in the doctor's office, church,synagogue or anywhere else will be completely forfeited. As you make love to your wife or husband cameras will be there. If you confide in your doctor, you might as well stand up at Madison Square garden and announce it all. Every aspect of our lives will be subject to scrutiny and accolades or condemnation as society sees fit. Employers will own us on the job and at home. If an employer doesn't like how we worship our Creator or not,who we marry or whether we choose to do so, how we have conducted our financial affairs (with imperfect information), whether we have had legal trouble (even if it was a mistake), our political leanings or not, we will be closed off from the capacity to earn a living in a respectable, dignified way. In part average Americans are to blame for all of this. The clerk at the bank who handles your account can decide your fate for the next several years.
4)Americans simply don't care for the most part. The average person is kept so off balance through work and family obligations that she or he does not see the big picture. Social injustices occur in every town and city in America but the failure of good people to participate and act allows those injustices to flourish.

Rating:
Summary: O'Reilly sums up what's wrong with society.
Review: I'll be the first one to admit I'm not a big fan of O'Reilly. Now that we got that out? I got the book from a friend of mine, and tried reading it with an open mind.

'Who's looking out for you' is Bill O'Reilly's attempt at a self-improvement book for you, offering hints ant tips so that you will be more aware of what to look out for. Both for yourself, and for the general population as a whole.

Discussing such matters as 1-parent families, selfish people who are just out there to screw you over whenever they can, the government not really caring about you (unless of course, it's election time), stars who don't exactly make an example out of themselves, religion, the war in Iraq, the legal system (basically the people WITHIN the legal system), and social and ethnic minorities, the reader is taken on a trip, with many insights into O'Reilly's personal life. The last two chapters are built around advice how you can protect yourself from making mistakes that will hurt you. Most of the chapters rely heavily on his personal experience.

Which is exactly one of my complaints about the book. While O'Reilly DOES make some valid points, his offered solutions are heavily based on what he believes is right. There's a whole lot of anecdotes from O'Reilly's own experience, but I can't help but get a nasty aftertaste in my mouth, making it seem as if he feels the constant need to pat himself and his show on the back for what he, the humble journalist, managed to pull off.

Another thing that irked me was the fact that whenever possible, O'Reilly (ab)uses his insights in what's wrong with the world to take a jab at his favourite targets. Jesse Jackson, George Clooney, Bill Moyers, and of course the Clintons. (At one point O'Reilly states the Clinton presidency chapter is closed. He goes on with a good 9 pages or so of bashing Bill Clinton. Hillary gets another few pages devoted to herself). Presidents Bush (both senior and junior) also get a slap on the wrist, but it's nowhere near the lashing reserved for the Clintons.

Finally, I do believe that someone like O'Reilly doesn't have to lower himself to namecalling. Often, people who disagree with will be labbeled 'pinheads', 'liars', and what not. This, in my opinion, takes away some credibility.

Most of the chapters are pretty straight-forward. The conclusions O'Reilly draws would like conclusions most people would agree with. While I'll choose to exercise my right to disagree with him on the religious and 'war in Iraq' chapter, one thing I did find lacking in the book was a chapter devoted to sources being quoted.

To sum things up? Yes. O'Reilly offers some advice that most people will benefit from. He offers an insight on social issues. But if you'd scrape all the personal backpatting and the attacks at the people he's known to dislike, I can't help but feel as if there would be very little left of the book.

Rating:
Summary: hes a racist
Review: bill oreilly takes every problem the US has and blames it on rap just becuase its for black people. Wheneva theres a black person on his show he neva lets em talk. Maybe its you parents fault for stuff like Columbine. If you took 5minutes to spend time to raise your kid right instead of countin your dough all day maybe your kids wouldnt shoot up the school. When black people commit a crime it at least it makes sense. If a we need money we cant get sum of us will steal. But you never hear of a black child molestor or a black person who shoots up a school cuz our parents taught us right even tho sum of us make mistakes. We got much worse problems then white people like gettin arrested for bein black and we got less money and live in rougher neighborhoods. White people grow up in rich neighborhoods and get everything they want but their parents have no time for them. I aint racist Im friends with some white people and I kno sum of yall are good parents but this is how it is with kids like the 1s in columbine. I bet everybodys gonna complain about this cuz everyone who read this book is in the KKK. Im also pissed that sum white people compare gay rights to the civil rights movement. 1st of all you can choose to be gay and you cant choose your race. You also can easily be a fag w/out anybody knowin. Black people were enslaved and gays werent. Black people had no rights and were treated like animals but gay people only couldnt get married. Black people were killed by the KKK arrested and had many seperate unequal laws but gay people got beat up for crossdressin. We cant take off our skin thats just who we are but gay people can be straight. We also fought in many wars for freedom like the revolutionary war against our will but we never got our freedom until recently. And we have courage MLK jr. rosa parks frederick douglas Malcolm X harriet tubman and many more black people have helped to fight for our rights even tho they risked their lives. Black people Hispanics and Jews all have had to put up with years of BS and we still aint equal with the white people (or christian white people if your jewish). We should still keep our culture but we should make friends with some white people and they should make some black and hispanic friends so that more of the white people are not racist and we can live together in a town no matter what race. Equal rights.

Rating:
Summary: disgusting, revolting, offensive, and plain vile
Review: Total FILTH from a self-possessed right-winger with no care for truth, honesty, and humanity. Just get as obnoxious as you can and watch your ratings skyrocket. Bill O'Reilly is all bark and no bite. Avoid and get any book by Al Franken instead.

Rating:
Summary: More Philosophy Than Poltics
Review: Selfishness has long been the target of those who urge that human beings can better themselves only by engaging in its opposite--altruism. In WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR YOU?, Bill O'Reilly suggests that selfishness does indeed have a worthwhile function in human relations. For O'Reilly selfishness is not of the me-first-and-the-hell-with-you variety. For him, his version includes eliminating those toxic individuals whose only purpose is to drag you down to their own miserable level. Once human beings are free to live their lives without the negativity of naysayers, then they are free to establish relations with those like minded others who realize that you cannot advance far in this or any other society without someone of note in your corner. What emerges, then, is a text that is more self-help than political. True, much of this book reveals the conservative origins of a political commentator who nightly preaches his philosophy of republicanism from his cable television show THE O'REILLY FACTOR. Yet, the examples that are taken from the world of politics are used to buttress his thesis that we can trust only those others who are truly looking out for our own best interests. His litany of those who make their fame and fortune off the misery of most of us is distressingly long: the monolithic federal government, the INS, Hillary Clinton, most Democrats, the Hollywood elite core of actors, the majority of journalists, the ACLU, and anyone who prides himself on his political correctness. His solution? One must make peace with one's own inner core of values. O'Reilly finishes his book with a series of steps that sound easy enough to say but are probably quite difficult to carry out. He urges us to take a clear look at our respective virtues and vices. We should learn to forgive us our trespasses and take positive action to cultivate relationships with those who are no more perfect than we are but we are sure that they are far more likely to help us out of a tight spot than to give us a shovel to more deeply dig ourselves into a bottomless pit. Ultimately, O'Reilly notes that if we are worthy of benign attention from potential help-givers, then we must first learn to have the strength to go life alone if needed. Later, as we show tolerance towards others who may or may not wish to help us, then we will be sure attract the helpful gaze of others who will follow a similar path toward establishing a support system of which we will be a willing part. WHO'S LOOKING OUT FOR YOU? is a welcome breath of fresh air that not only shows the political differences between liberals and conservatives but also points out that guided selfishness is a virtue that we would do well to emulate.

Rating:
Summary: Who ISN'T Looking Out For You? Demoncrats and Liberal Media!
Review: The masses of intimidated, frightened prostitutes of Demoncrat's fanatical left-wing offshoot who gratingly keep forging their reviews are vomit-inducing, nauseous Bin Laden-loyalists, whose derisions at O'Reilly as a "Republican mouthpiece" are so infernally retarded, they backfire. It's aggravating to witness denigrated, undereducated Nazis wear out O'Reilly-branding mantras, when, to any anti-religious liberal who doesn't want to be scandalized as a uselessly imperceptive Neanderthal, O'Reilly's views are centrist, unshakably founded within rationale. It's observable why the liberal-stoners are loathsomely ostracizing humiliatingly clear-cut issues into partisan-lines; socialists are insanely slighted when O'Reilly communicates bluntly straightforward directness-disowning PC sensitivity-because socialists are inefficiently discursive, evasive enfeeblers. This soullessness is what makes them menacingly effective terrorist-enablers. These ravaging, agitated, race-dividing liberals are totally mischievous delinquents, proven by their irrationally automated seizures of falsifying reviews to bestially scathe public figures their diabolical minds can't accept, this misconduct happening broadly under conservative book reviews.

Only reason Demoncrats suffer from incrementing inferiority complexes is because O'Reilly condemns the blame on majorities of Demoncratic-incited initiatives. Abrasively, many of America's ordeals of the past years are DIRECTLY TRACEABLE to their evildoings!!!! O'Reilly's praiseworthy for recapitulating that 9/11's death toll belongs to CLINTON ADMIN. misbehavior, the primary one being the "Torricelli Principle"-killing America's establishment to gather intelligence on terrorism, as found in a House Intelligence Committee report-the second trespass being the animosity-incurring maltreatment of Reno towards Freeh's FBI's request to appoint independent counsels to investigate unkosher Clinton-Gore finance misdemeanors. Resulting was the most frailly impeded WH-FBI relationship in history, which birthed America's worst body-count ever!!!!

Another exemplar of O'Reilly's centricity is well-intentioned focus on sweepingly mattering issues, indifferent to party partiality. O'Reilly, social-consciously, retraces INS' willful slipping in apprehending sniper Malvo, which may've staved-off D.C. area attacks. The culprit's INS head Ziglar, whose subordinate, Seattle's Blake Brown, encroachingly overruled Border Patrol's verdict to deport Malvo and his mother, incurred even more terribly by the spiteful fact the order was rejected because of insufficiency in INS funding. As evidenced herein, O'Reilly ISN'T wrathfully segregative like alarming liberal propaganda-mongers (Ivins, Corn), instead allowing reason to dictate his viewpoints!!!! O'Reilly even scolds Bush for not tightening borders up despite the 10 million illegals roaming around undocumented. Truly, with such bipartisanship, the viciously undereducated, Demoncratic-sensationalism apostles counterfeiting their reviews mountingly fit the frenetic radicalism Demoncrats are often demeaned with.

Improprieties during Clinton's Admin. are highlighted, namely the scandal that Clinton was just consequently authorized while everything American was succeeding: the economy and airs of "peace". Clinton did Diddlysquat to broker this. For oppressively irrational liberals, Clinton didn't create jobs. They were the side-effect of late-90s lustfulness for speculative tech stocks which "created" jobs in savagely perilous tech "start-ups". If you don't succumb to this, Demoncratic demagogues have brainwashed you irretrievably!!!! That's why most of so-called "2 million" jobs lost "under Bush's Admin." were unsubstantial, inherently. Clinton's incriminated for being the most cunningly chicaning president, fabricating minority empathy, yet under whose tenure Black children kept underperforming in public schools. Clinton anarchically let CEOs pillage companies, disguising the resentfulness of CEOs' salaries crushing average workers' by 100 times through a BUBBLE economy. Clinton soullessly backslid as North Korea contravened nuclear treaty, speculatively contributing to North Korea's present-day extortions. Unless you're a barbarically hostile apologist, you'd surrender that Clinton absconded calamitous disasters on Bush!!!!

The liberal media's exposed as an exorbitantly predominant nuisance, misleader in information dissemination. One simply has to look at the spitefully PREJUDICIAL, ANTI-WAR mentality most networks abuse in "chronicling" post-war Iraq's reconstruction. For anyone (excluding liberals), it was loathsomely blatant most networks misreported Iraq's combat-phase, soliciting their bosses' plot for scornful "internationalism" subserving UN "authority". Besides broader cross-section of networks mistreating broadcasts on anti-war psychos and inadmissible "world-opinion", some renegade papers-LAT, NYT-abysmally forged the Coalition was being wasted!!!! O'Reilly observantly postulates the accursed liberal media's baneful to Americans' interests because, at war's onset, Gallup polls were intimidating an overwhelming 76% approval of war while the media perpetrated dissipated malcontent. Still now-a year later-approval of war is well at 60%, from Newsweek to CNN. America's media disease isn't solely contaminating networks; even PBS experiences liberal infestation!!!! Bill Moyers illy misallocates money to his punk-son John, Thomas Paine operator-dangerous liberal propagandist-as president at Schumann foundation.

The ACLU's seditious tactics of combatively suing and terrorizing everyone seeking to practice religion publicly are essayed. AGAIN OBDURATE liberals, O'Reilly doesn't careen to pushing his agenda of marginalizing the ACLU based on his Catholicism, but non-partisanly displays the facts after examination. The results happen to unmask irreligious wrath from the ACLU, which just happens to dirty liberals also, because of their sacrilegiousness. Dissatisfied liberals abjectly confuse this strict fact as "proof" of O'Reilly's conservatism!!!! ACLU animosities have trespassed onto worse than separating state and religion. O'Reilly lucidly distinguishes how the ACLU's hounded even people exercising their private rights to professing religion in public, not just their bar to solely chase violations of Church and State separation.

O'Reilly's a well-read, literate analyst of politics/news. Displeasingly insensate liberals/socialists WILL do well to estrange themselves from ungoverned psychopaths like Ivins, Moore, Corn. Only O'Reilly DOESN'T takeover arguments to fabricate prejudices succumbing to his views, UNLIKE the aforementioned liberal arch-fiends. When O'Reilly censures traitorous celebrities on decaying already harrowing principles that children in today's parentally backslid, information-age corruptibility have-like Whitney "JUNKHEAD" Houston; Jennifer Lopez, preys on men selfishly; George Clooney, terrifyingly lies to magazines after omitting 9/11 victims' collection from funds-O'Reilly DOESN'T maltreat that to declare all celebrities sinful. Unjust, renegade, liberal authors would misappropriate those respective examples indiscriminately to all celebrities. Likewise, when O'Reilly correlates discomforting facts that, as secularists forsake children to rely on dissipating media assailment; and bar them from easier religious exposure, the ferocious rise in young people's unmanageability is dependent on rotting integrity, he DOESN'T tyrannize that to condemn American children as the world's worst. One self-hating, anti-American plotter (Moore) would!!!! O'Reilly expects you to disagree TO FOSTER debate, and DOESN'T intimidatingly subject his beliefs on anyone.

Rating:
Summary: It's CRAPTACULAR!
Review: In a world gone mad, full of lies and lying liars, it is truly refreshing to read the unadulterated writings of Brad O'Malley, or whatever. Bruce (Bart? Betsy?) tells it like it is: this is a guy who doesn't cater to the whims of a particular political party, because he's a registered independent! Oh, wait, he lied about that. Well, um, Bob (Buck? B'Nath?) is a multiple-award winning journalist, winning two Peabody Awards for his work on "Prurient Tabloid Crap Edition," or whatever. Er, wait, I guess he lied about that too. Now Bink (Box? Bics?) has amassed a media empire second to none, what with his "Spin Like You Mean It Zone," or whatever. You can watch his "O'Tommy (O'Lindsey?) Fogger," or whatever, every night on the government-approved news network, and he also probably has a radio show or whatever. When you do, remember that Blaine (Boyce? Bryn?) doesn't like it when people mouth off too much or try to talk on his show, like that punk kid who had the nerve to have his dad die on 9/11 and then wanted to talk about it on the Fragger. O'Been (O'Yolly?) isn't afraid to knock your teeth down your throat if he doesn't like what you're saying. Remember, on the Factoid, or whatever, you have the right to free speech, but if you're going to say something that Benedict (Brae?) doesn't like, or that criticizes anybody in the government except for queer liberals and such, then just shut your yap or Brynn (Barak?) will shut it for you! Got it?

Rating:
Summary: Wrong on Iraq war, inhuman on immigration
Review: This book depicts the state of mind of a busy unrealistic man who oversimplifies issues and contends that he knows better than the average Joe does. Although, Mr. O'Reailly can associate with common people more than other conservative figures, yet he demonstrates meager grasp on vital political and social issues.

He is extreme and inhuman on immigration. He proposes military measures to protect the borders and extreme means to track illegal aliens in order to enforce immigration laws. He does not sense the conflict between the dire need for cheap and abundant foreign labor versus the high cost of implementing border patrol and internal immigration police. If there were sufficient manpower to protect the borders and hunt for undocumented aliens, then one can better use that manpower in agriculture labor, factory work, restaurant industry, instead of deploying them in the mountains and deserts to watch for illusive invaders. The rise of China as an economic giant has skipped Mr. O'Reilly's thinking regarding the benefit of greater manpower in elevating nations. In addition, the immigration laws of USA are the making of the government with the scrutiny of consent of American people.

His support of the war on Iraq seems to stem from his ambition to remain mainstream. In his fifties, he still works two jobs; both are formidable for a man of this age. He does not hesitate to appear on Howard Stern's pornography show or to use any means to reach his goals. His support of the war on Iraq demonstrates the hypocrisy of a writer who claims to know "who is looking out for common people". His shallow understanding of the Middle East history undermines his ability to discuss international affairs. He fails to realize that America's image in the Middle East is viewed in the context of the not-so-far colonialism by Great Britain and France. The average man in the Middle East has clearer understanding of Washington's policy than this Yale's graduate and TV and Radio anchor. Iraqis are pleased with the end of Saddam, yet they know, in their deep heart, that America is not up for good. They see five million Palestinians in the refugee camps in Lebanon and many others Palestinians hiding from the brutal chase of the Arab governments to expel their brethren for fear of creating strong Palestinian parties within neighboring countries. If George Bush has any good intent then why did he welcome the dictator of Egypt in his Texas ranch, or the Saudi monarch, the Jordanian King? These are the worst enemies to the freedom and liberation of the Arab nations. A reasonable man would expect Mr. Bush to solve all the Middle East problems with just few telephone calls based on the might and glory of the USA. He could turn the tide of war to triumph if he calls on these three dictators to step down in order to allow their people to rule with democracy. That would convince the oppressed millions in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Jordan that USA means what it says.

The irony is that Mr. O'Reailly perceives himself as an eminent intellectual who can "destroy people's careers" and "crush his opponents", yet he, constantly, acts and behaves as a salesman. Not only advertising for radio promotion, but also pandering to the powerful and influential. With his eyes on his ratings and popularity, he spins the unspinnable. He claims that Iraq War is about oil, which defies simple historic facts. America can secure plenty of energy resources without waging purposeless wars. Such media frenzy of rationalizing the motives for the war will not shadow the fact that it is George Bush's war. The president has repeatedly stated that " they want war, and war they got". Mr. Bush's primitive view of a world that is black and white, with us or against us, has drawn America to this plunder. The president's poor understanding of history lessons, lack of personable appeal, and his quest for glorifying legacy led to such grave miscalculation of waging an aimless war.