Who's Looking Out for You?

Rating:
Summary: Pompous Gasbag does another smeller
Review: It's not that O'Reilly has splotchy skin -- it's that he's a thin-skinned jerk. It's not that he can't remember which lie he tells from day to day, it's that he's forgets that people can play the tape back and prove he's a liar when he denies he said what he said. It's not that this isn't a book. It's just that there isn't any content between the covers.

He claimed for a long time to have won two Peabody awards for broadcast journalism. He lied. He didn't. Then he said he confused the Peabody with another award. Right. Like the average journalist gets confused with a plastic trophy he won in elementary school and a Pulitzer.

He does more than one whopper of the week. He's not a traitor or unAmerican, but what he spouts doesn't have much respect for basic American beliefs. It's that he's just a performer who has a serious disconnect between his brain and his mouth. Not to mention his word processors.

But let's face it, the right wing nutters of various stripes will try to bloviate this book to five stars. They'll take it home even if they can't read it. It gives them gives them somebody to blame for almost anything.

Better to read this standing up at Costco than spend $14.95 for this trash. That's true even if you're an O'Reilly lover who's got a plastic bag wrapped tightly about your head and you pop you Limbaugh brand, genuine conservative pain pills to make you forget you're a big fat idiot. But you could read the dustjacket and you skip the rest if you're short on time.

O'Reilly resembles one of the great gasbags of the 30s, Father Coughlin. O'Reilly's best talent is a practiced video sneer. Not a substitute for content -- which is totally missing in this turgid crap.

Try reading someone you don't agree with who has something to say that challenges you.

Rating:
Summary: Point of view from a 16 year old
Review: Hi my name is Jeff and i'm a 16 year old high school student. I've never been a huge fan of Bill Oreilly but I frequently listen to his talk show and was interested in reading his book after hearing a mix of reviews. First of all I would just like to say after reading many of these reviews on here, it saddens me to see that people would give it that bad of ratings. When the book in reality has an excellent message contrary to what people are making it out to be. Ok now that I've gotten that out of the way I'll get to my overview of the book. The book in general has an excellent message to it and Bill is just trying to show that 80% of this country is not looking out for your well being. I can understand why he says that considering i go to school day after day and witness things that are extremely unmoral and just plain stupid. At my highschool like most, kids are doing drugs and having sex and doing stuff that doesnt need to happen. But with all honestly these kids, in their mind truly dont believe what there doing is wrong. The reason is, they have no one telling them any different. Morals today are a word that basically means nothing. Kids dont understand what there doing is wrong and i can honestly say that the people that Bill is stomping on in his book are due to much of the blame. Bill talks about how the media is a huge factor to blame in the fall of this countrys morals and beliefs. I must agree with him there, gangster rappers talking about raping girls, movies dipicting people dealing crack using drugs doing everything you can think of seriously dont people think that has any affect on kids my age. But the truth is there are hundreds of parents and adults out there who think that movies and rappers have no affect on their children and that witnessing and listening to these things will have no affect on them. When i can honesly say from a first hand expierence that these things do affect young people and ignoring it will eventually lead to more inmoral acts more disrespect towards teachers and parents. All bill is trying to show is that if people have no moral structure that they will eventually corrupt themselves. For example Bill mentions how the ten commandments were takin out a courthouse because people didnt like haveing having something religous like that in a court house. What amazes me however is that the ten commandments are a great moral guide that can apply to anyone no matter what religon. I infact would be extremely happy if they made it mandatory to have a copy of the ten commandments in every school in this country so that everyday kids could see it and finally have a structure to go on. Although im am just sixteen i have learned a lot by viewing the world around me and i just thank god for Bill Oreilly and people who actually care about others in this country. People can mock him as much as they want but the truth is the truth and unless this country wakes up and decides that we cant operate our morals our beliefs like this anymore this country is going to become extremely corrupt, so corrupt that i hope im dead by the time it happens. So in conclusion if you care about this country about other and are genuine person i guarantee you will enjoy reading this book.

Rating:
Summary: thoughtful
Review: This a thoughtful book about taking stock of your friends and family. Bill suggests listening to what people around you say to expose whether they are truely on your side or not. I appreciate Bill's honesty.

Rating:
Summary: Review the book not the Ideology
Review: -
I have always considered myself on the liberal side of ideologies - however I really don't get into opinions of who is where on that scale (as 99% of the above reviewers do). I also have not kept up with Bill O'Reilly - I did not know his history and have never watched more than a 'channel surfers' view of his show. SO - this should be a semi unbiased review...
• The book reads very quickly and is a great page turner.
• His experience and accolades as a writer and journalist are obvious which makes this book an entertaining read.
• His opinions are very well spelled out as being so but are not outrageous or totally right winged conservative.
• Though I did not agree with all of what he expresses (and how he expressed it) this book is very entertaining, interesting, comical, quick witted and provides a different spin on real world issues - I enjoyed reading this book.
- - - - -

Rating:
Summary: Not as bad as they say, but it's not worth your time
Review: I rarely read books by 'talking heads' and this book reminded me why. Let's face it, these guys (on the left and right) are just full of it. They grab onto one little story that highlights whatever they want you to believe and try and leverage it into proving some massive social-political point. From now one I am boycotting everyone from Bill O'Reilly to Michael Moore. If I want to hear an idiot rant I know plenty of people who will drone on for free where I work.

Rating:
Summary: That's my girl!
Review: Hey folks, Dubya here. Ok, first off: I didn't read the book (can't read). I'm not writing this review either (can't write); I'm dictating this to someone else.

Basically, I ream B.O. nightly. Hard. And each night, his reply is, "more, daddy, more, more, more." I especially like when he wears his Viking helmet and I grab the horns and he does his best Ned Beatty impression.

So why only one star? Because that beyotch gave me the clap! (It turns out he's been messing around with Ann Coulter.) You see, ol Bill has a problem: he wants to jump into bed with every Republican he meets. And he's usually on the receiving end (even with Ann- don't ask).

The only reason he's still my girl is because Rush is history. It got difficult being with a guy who's always passed out stoned in a pool of his own vomit. Yes, I'm starting to think Bill is pathetic, but of course that won't stop me from using him.

Rating:
Summary: Amazing isn't it?
Review: I'm only 15 and I can see the wrong doings in both the Left and Right side of American Politics. O'Reilly doesn't jump down the throats of one side more than the other. I found his book very entertaining and full of intelligent questions. In which most of his opponents couldn't answer.. Now imagine that.

Rating:
Summary: Classic O'Reilly
Review: This is classic O'reilly but it's not nearly as good as his book, Those Who Trespass, which has got lots of violence and juicy sex scenes in it. Check it out.

Rating:
Summary: The Chief
Review: I must admit, I almost let all the negative reviews being highlighted on this website as a deterrent. But, one must consider the source of these reviews. I personally find it despicable that Amazon will allow such blatantly uninformed posts pass off as honest reviews.

Bill's main thesis, no surprise is that many powerful are not looking out for you. Both sides of the political spectrum have their own interest to look out for first, many mainstream media are agenda and ideologically driven, corporations and entertainers persists on belching out vile and degrading material that is bastardizing American society and even the church is looking out for itself and prestigious power players before those harmed by those very people.

Bill's latest actually devotes only a small portion to politics. He offers critics of the Clinton administration for the horrible "Toricelli Principle", which crippled the very intelligence we desperately need.

Bill also lampoons John Ashcroft and the handling of the INS, border situation, and Ascrofts' condescending reply to O'Reilly when Bill called him out on it.

Funny that leftist-defamers never mention Bill's adoration of Bobby Kennedy. Bill admiration for Kennedy is documented in the book, and it has some basis. Bobby played ball against the powerful and corrupt; whereas recent attorney generals will/have not. The result, the powerful protecting each other before us.

The overall tone of the book is that rigid individualism; self-discipline, a sense of values (not necessarily religous, although that is fine), and a strong support network are what are necessary for success and happiness.

Big government programs (the big dig as an example of how wasteful and corrupt they are) and the PC cleansed view of society problems are not going to solve jack. Bill's take the steps that are necessary for poor crime ridden communities to take back their communites is excellent. Many problems in this society are perpetrated by the breakdown of self-responsibility and the increasing sense of apathy.

Bills attitude is that you must rely on yourself and those who support you above all else, yes even the governement. For this, the left hates Bill, because in their eyes "society" let these people down, and big government programs, more money, and understanding is what is necessary. To address the true nature of a problem, these communities and leaders must simply look in the mirror. This is not a simplistic approach, it is a realistic approach.

Bill does take a sense of absolute morality in his assessment of problems; there are few gray areas to him. This upsets many of the moral relativist crowd. The stigmas that use to be attached to not so popular things like kids out of wedlock, divorce, substance abuse is no longer in place in society. Bill states in the book that this very breakdown is contribution greatly to society and individual's ills. I beg anyone to prove otherwise.

The book also has some good advice for parents. I don't agree with it all, but many people should check it out, it wouldn't hurt.

Of course Bill does blast liberal organizations in the book like the ACLU, because they are so ridiculous. Anyone who thinks the ACLU is looking out for traditional/constitutional values has been spending too much time on salon.com.

The book is a re-hash of opinions O'Reilly has previously commented on, just in further detail. The guy has 3 hrs of face time per day, so there are no groundbreaking revelations in the book. Nonetheless, it is an informative and entertaining read if you can accept Bill's inherent ego.

Bills point of view represents many of the middle-america type crowd, thus his appeal.

I will leave with this, since mud is being tossed, I am not above the fray and will toss a little back.

Here is a review that illustrates the snobbery and intellectual dishonesty of the Franken crowd. It is obvious this person didn't read the book.
.........
it didn't take long to spot the phoniness in this tome filled with material already worned thin on his TV show. His appeal seems limited to the suckers, the joe sixpacks and religious righties and other unsophisticated simpletons, those who believe the lies and allow themselves to be manipulated, who are willing to believe that giving their rich neighbor a tax cut that will inevitably raise their own taxes later will in the end benefit them, and gullibly swallow all the Bush administration propaganda and who keep on believing and keep on getting the shaft
.........

Rating:
Summary: Big Lie in the book
Review: Others have pointed out a lot of lies, half-truths, inaccuracies, and fallacies of this book. Here is my contribution:

In the fifth chapter of the book, named "God Help Us," O'Reilly goes on a rant about the "secularists" and their efforts to defy the wishes of the founding fathers. O'Reilly's hypothesis is that the founders intended spirituality to be in the forefront of the public attention, and that they definitely founded the nation on "Judeo-Christian philosophy" and the values of the Ten Commandments. (Just exactly what Judeo-Christian "philosophy" is still escapes me) Most of his arguments rely on equivocation of God-language, selective observation, and conjecture. All are of little intellectual signifance, and most can be dismissed as the usual "combat sophistry" that has made him famous.

HOWEVER, there is one thing that is of considerable interest, given the recent attention given to his penchant for mendacity. On pp. 116-117, O'Reilly uses a quote from James Madison:

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of mankind for self-government, upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments."

O'Reilly adds some emphasis to the end of the quote to really get his point across. He goes on, over the next few pages, to use this as the linchpin of his argument about the founders' insistence upon using the Ten Commandments as the value system on which to model the country. The only problem is, Madison never said it. The quote was a fabrication from another famous conservative fraud, David Barton, an evangelical Christian activist who has written a few books in an effort to tear down the wall of separation. His arguments have been dismantled on a number of occasisons, and he has been caught fabricating many quotes attributed to the founders. Nonetheless, this has been overlooked, and his lies are used by AM talk show hosts such as Rush Limbaugh, praised by Newt Gingrich, and even read into the Congressional Record by people such as Rep. Dannemeyer (10/7/1992), and he is still a frequent guest on Christian television programs.

What is interesting is that Barton himself admitted in 2001 that he made up several quotes, after they had been exposed nine or ten years earlier by legitimate historians. The Madison quote was one of them. O'Reilly boasted during the interview with Terry Gross about how people were amazed at how well researched the chapter was, and went so far as to say "I have a degree in history, I have all of Jefferson's and Madison's letters and Iknows what I am talking about." Given the fraudulent nature of the quote he uses in his book, there are only a few conclusions: either O'Reilly is a shoddy scholar who is incapable of checking and using his sources correctly(i.e. he didn't know that the quote was bogus), or he knew it was bunk and is a shameless fraud who is posing as an academic, hoping no one notices. It is ironic that he would do this when he sardonically accuses the "secularists" in that same chapter of themselves lying about our history. (Not to mention that he would lie about his sources during the NPR interview)

I wonder what his excuse would be about this one? I bet he'd probably accuse me of "defaming" him, which is his diversion du jour. He is an intellectually bankrupt tabloid sensationalist, and those who follow him are checking their intellectual integrity at the door.