Who's Looking Out for You?

Rating:
Summary: A stand up man
Review: I read WLOFY and appreciated O'Reilly sharing a more personal side. Love him or hate him, O'Reilly calls them like he sees them. He is unique in that he consistently backs up arguments with hard data.

But when I read some of the negative reader reviews on this book, I see the new face of hate. Say goodbye to the KKK and hello to political hate or hate based on being any type of high profile individual in today's society. We should never wonder why more good people do not seek public office. And some of the negative arguments are just dense: "Pure trash just like Fox News." Are we really that sloppy and lazy that we cannot form a better argument? What is that? Would you mind citing even one example and why that makes the whole network and hundreds of employees across the U.S "trash"? Is that too much to ask in this age of video games, DVD and Tivo?

So kudos to guys like O'Reilly who have the life experience, fortitude, along with the education to cut through the ideological propaganda that seems to be replacing the hard news pages. The lynch mentality in this country is alive and well it is focused on public figures these days. The facts are irrelevant but sound bites and clever put downs rule the day.

I learned in journalism to consult many sources because the sun does not rise and set on any one man or woman or political party or broadcast network. But I do find O'Reilly consistent, honest and forthcoming with facts to back up his arguments. That is what sets him apart.

Rating:
Summary: O'Reilly seems to care, I'm not sure about what though?
Review: As with his radio and tv shows O'Reilly is putting across the idea that he only cares about the "Folks". This is seen as utterly false if you read his book. While there is a lot of good ideas in the book about how to be a good person they are all very, very obvious and shouldn't be in a book on a bestseller list. The main purpose of his writing is to attack Bill and Hillary Clinton becaue they are powerful Democrats(and Hillary has a book out the same time as him) and to downgrade the credibility of such newspapers and news channels such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, NBC, CBS, CNN, and PBS. All of whom are critical of him professionally and sometimes personally. I wonder why he sought out to attack them. Could he be looking out for himself.

Anyway this book in no way discusses anything factual. He tells us what to do in every apect of our life including raising our kids when I don't even think he is married or has kids. He doesn't discuss anything important. He just attacks and decredits. I find it funny that most of the other news books I pick up are well over 300 pages when this is just over 200. Not really much to say when your sole purpose is to attack the Clinton and the Times.

One last example I wanted to use. O'Reilly tries to show his bipartisan criticism by calling out two different journalists. He describes one as a "far-right" columnist and one as "LOONEY leftist". That seems like spin to me.

Rating:
Summary: O'Reilly's book has focus, but he's legally inept
Review: I read Bill O'Reilly's previous two books, and I must say, this book, unlike the ones before, has a common theme -- which is, of course, "Who's looking out for you?" It's this theme that gives me the true impression that O'Reilly truly cares about ordinary people.

I wish O'Reilly understood the law more. It is for this reason that I cannot give the book five stars. When talking about the Danielle van Dam murder, he would prefer to toss the attorney-client privilege out the door, though he won't explicitly state it. Attorneys for the accused murderer did not disclose the victim's body and in effect protected their client's right to speak to attorneys without the authorities knowing the content of such discussions. Why O'Reilly cannot understand attorneys' obligations is beyond me, and when he was consulting other attorneys on whether or not such conduct by the defense counsel was unethical, it was ONLY the prosecutors IN THAT CASE who told O'Reilly it was against ethical rules - talk about an unbiased opinion or what.

I am glad O'Reilly cares for people, including the late Danielle van Dam. But I wish he were more adept about the issues he chooses to talk about.

Rating:
Summary: The rhetorical strategies of Mr. O¿Reilly.
Review: This review is about the discursive and rhetorical strategies (perversity, futility, and jeopardy) O'Reilly uses in this book and radio shows.
Mr. O'Reilly's books and radio shows are comforts to those who are confused in these troubling times. Yet - can Mr. O'Reilly be trusted in his words?

In his book, he writes about 'trust' (who is looking out for you). In order to find out if I should 'trust' O'Reilly, I need to listen to his radio show.

Any of his radio shows will demonstrate how 'switched' his reasoning and rhetoric is. Since some people reason in different ways, it is best to see how this plays out.

Mr. O'Reilly likes using 'common sense' judgements - i.e. "common sense tells us..."
But what is 'common sense' but what the majority and/or our rulers tell us is 'true?'
In other words, in appealing to 'common sense' we have already formed a general concept of what it means to think.
Now think this through.
If this were so, by appealing to 'common sense' blacks would still be slaves since at one time 'commons sense' said certain people were not capable of reasoning and should be used as slaves.

Mr. O'Reilly also likes to make grandiose statements using qualifiers like 'every,' 'all,' and 'none.' Listening to his radio show today he said 'every law is under attack by secularists!' No if, and, or but - no qualifiers what so ever.
This is his fact - 'every law is under attack by secularists.'
How could some one say that and be thought of as a semi-reasonable person?

Also, on the same program, he talked about marijuana and made some second-order judgements.
In particular, he said: "marijuana is a gateway drug. This is a fact and I won't take any calls questioning this because this is the no spin zone!"
Can I believe this statement? I wanted to find out...
I wanted to see if - as his book claims - he can be trusted.
His claim that marijuana is a gateway drug, as far as I could tell, rests on his statement - "all people who used heroin used marijuana."

Anyway, I went to the library and checked out the latest book on marijuana research called "Understanding Marijuana: A new look at the scientific evidence," Authored by Mitch Earlywine (Professor of Clinical Science and Director of Clinical Psychology, USC). Published by Oxford University Press (2002).
Mr. Earlywine has a chapter (3) on 'Gateway' (pages 49-65).
In this chapter (which is worth reading in whole) Mr. Earlywine discusses David Hume, his writings on empirical reasoning, and how we should look at the evidence to see if marijuana is indeed a gateway drug - I quote "Hume's first criterion for establishing a cause concerns association. Despite popular stereotypes, the association between marijuana and harder drugs is not particularly strong' (page 53).
Earlywine's conclusions appear on pages 63-64, in part he says, "There is no evidence that cannabis (marijuana) creates physiological changes that increase the desire for drugs. The idea that marijuana causes subsequent drug use also appears unfounded."

In his book, Mr. O'Reilly makes many truth claims. In one instance, his claims about WMD in Iraq have appeared to be unfounded (so far).
And his claim on his radio show - that marijuana is a gateway drug presented, as fact (no spin here) is also unfounded.

In all, Mr. O'Reilly operates using discursive and rhetorical strategies and tries to portray himself as a 'common sense' guy just giving us the 'truth.'

The problem is, for me; his 'truth' and 'common sense' are questionable.

Rating:
Summary: garbage.
Review: Just like Fox News, this book is nothing but garbage.

Rating:
Summary: You decide
Review: This book reminds me of my neighbor's back yard dog - - barking at everything in sight and every sound made. Barking dogs are generally annoying and unless you get to know them, you're never really sure if they're friendly or just mean-spirited. This dog may or may not be friendly but its purpose is clear . . . to be on the lookout for anything suspicious.

It occurs to me that Bill O'Reilly is like my neighbor's dog, unrelenting in his bark - - facing what's wrong in the world head-on. After reading this book, you'll know that the loud and persistent bark isn't mean-spirited at all, but rather, a message of warning and "beware". Thank you Mr. O'Reilly for looking out for all of us.

Rating:
Summary: how to be "progressive"
Review: we all want to progress, afterall, change is unavoidable. However, only conservatives realize that the only way we can change things is if we embrace and accept how things are- to go WITH the forces that be. The left doesnt ACCEPT the reality of today- let alone agree or disagree. C learly, the left is not working with reality.
"Progressives" should stop trying to CREATE something new by way of trial and error only to venture further into disillusionment and instead should DISCOVER the classical thinkers.
For example, the humanities-the sciences of man- (politics, philosophy, psychology, anthropology, sociology..) were once aimed toward discovering the nature of man so we can uncover the GOOD, TRUE,UNIVERSAL, and what is FREEDOM. Our normative values were to follow from our understanding of how the nature of self relates to the nature of existence. This was more than an approach it was a METHOD.
Liberal thinking, however, is undercutting this method toward the true, good, and universal in man. They instead try to justify their goal toward "equality" while disregarding the concept of "freedom" . Freedom becomes a FREEDOM FROM- no longer a FREEDOM TO or FREEDOM FOR. Values become relativized and humaness becomes an average.
This, In effect, destroys the method toward a science of man. Anthropology becomes reduced to a mere comparative sociology, the concepts of society are left undefined.
Someone should tell a liberal that it is never possible for society to be "value-free" no matter how politically correct you decry us to be. As long as there are those unable to reason for ourselves, society, father figures, EVERYTHING will always be implying some value to us. So please progessives, stop "breaking it all down for us" - it is not helping- and have faith in man. A reasonable man looks for truth- not contradictions. We are a capitalist, individualist nation for REASONS worth understanding..... there IS a nature of evil
etc etc.

Rating:
Summary: A Fun and Serious Read
Review: At one time, we took Citizenship classes in school. Our Congressmen sent us flyers about "How a Bill Becomes Law." No more. If you watch Bill O'Reilly or listen to the No Spin Zone, you're still missing something. This book is a true gift. It should be required reading and discussion in all American High Schools.

However, we know that will never happen. I suggest to anyone who cares about the next generation's future to consider giving THIS book as a High School graduation present. It provides thoughtful insights that will help any adolescent or young adult become a responsible, productive American citizen. It will help you make better informed choices. While some people may call it cynical, I can only call it sensible. If you want to make somethiing out of your life with fewer scars, physical and psychological, fewer ripoffs, see through the confidence games played throughout society, READ THIS BOOK. Candor and insight are what make some pundits consider these three words--Bill O Reilly--the most dangerous in America!

Rating:
Summary: Bringing Morality Back to our Country
Review: Bill hits the nail on the head time and time again. He sacrifices popularity and ratings for truth and morality. Buy this book if you want the no-holds barred reality on life in America, where it is headed and what we can do to keep America the land of Morality.

Rating:
Summary: ** 1/2 STARS. A DECENT READ
Review: I'm not a Bill O'Reilly fan. However, he does have an interesting point of view. Unlike The other right wing pundits, he's at least capable of being objective. This past weekend, I decided to give this book a look-see I read through the chapters that interested me .Overall this seems like a decent read and it's always good to get an alternative POV from time to time.

Here's my review and I'll keep this brief:
The good
O'Reilly points out something everyone needs to be reminded of; The Federal government is not looking out for you (or me or him) nor is that what it's there for.
O'Reilly Takes shots a Bush and Clinton for allowing corporate corruption to continue unchecked
O'Reilly admits that there are many brutal dictatorships around the world and that it's not the US's job to remove all off them.

The bad:
O'Reilly tries to imply that Saddam may have been connected to the Anthrax attacks of 2001. Bill, the Anthrax came from a US Military base. Even the FBI admits this.
O'Reilly sings the party line about Iraq. regardless of how flawed it is. He's since made his apology regarding the WMD's, so I'll cut him some slack.
O'Reilly really believes he and his "NO Spin Zone" are unbiased. Yeah right...but then again, who really is?