Oh Bill, You Really Should Sit Down and Have Some Cocoa.

Because I’m a bit of a masochist, I occasionally read Bill O’Reilly’s columns and commentaries on the world in general. I usually find them to be somewhat better thought out than his radio show and television tirades, you see. And the tragic thing is that I want to think Bill O’Reilly really is an intelligent guy. In fact, I KNOW he is, I’ve read articles by him that were clearly well thought out and researched and everything. Which is why every time he doesn’t write as well as he can, it, well, it makes me sad. You can be a smart guy, Bill. I know you can. You just need to stop acting so dumb.

Take this, for example. It’s a recent column of his, and I’ll reprint it in its entirety, just to prove I’m not Daily Showing it up here:

Kids Gone Wild

By Bill O'Reilly

Thursday, April 16, 2009

1. “These are dark days for traditional Americans-folks who believe that the Judeo-Christian principles of right and wrong should be considered when making public policy. The other day, former "Focus on the Family" chief Dr. James Dobson actually told his crew that the culture war was being lost in America. And it is hard to argue with Dobson's opinion.

2. “All over the USA, secular-progressives are on the move, promoting gay marriage, legalized drugs, unfettered abortion, and attacking almost all judgments on personal behavior. And nowhere is the movement more intense than in the nation's most liberal state: Vermont.

3. “The legislature in the Green Mountain State recently voted to legalize gay marriage, overriding the veto of Governor Jim Douglas. Vermont is the first state to actually legislate in favor of homosexual nuptials, as Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Iowa all had gay marriage imposed on the citizenry by judges.

4. “It is worth noting that Vermont is one of the few states that voted down Jessica's Law, the tough mandatory prison sentence legislation against child sexual predators. An investigation into Vermont's criminal justice apparatus reveals the state embraces "restorative justice," whereby criminals often receive "holistic" treatment as part of their sentence for even heinous crimes like child rape. The goal is not so much to punish the offender, but to "restore" him or her to their rightful place in society. That is a secular-progressive hallmark.

5. “While Vermont is coddling child predators, it is also sending a message to kids: Hey, you can do pretty much what you want. Somewhat incredibly, the Vermont senate has passed a bill decriminalizing consensual "sexting." That is the process by which children send sexual pictures of themselves to other children using cell phones or computers. The proposed Vermont law says that 13- to 18-year-olds will be allowed to do that, but not distribute the photos to more than one person or an adult.
“Supporters of the sexting law say it's necessary so that teenagers will not be prosecuted as sexual offenders and have their lives ruined. There is some validity to that, as dopey kids do dopey things. However, the sane solution would be to categorize sexting as a misdemeanor breach of the peace, thus sending a message that it is unacceptable for kids to send other kids sexual images.
“But secular-progressives are loathe to make that judgment. Remember, these are the same people who believe a girl has the right to an abortion without telling her parents. So if a kid can undergo a major life altering operation (especially for the fetus), why should it be a big deal to do a little sexting?
“With a liberal federal government and media, there is little opposition being voiced to what is happening in Vermont and other secular-progressive enclaves. Culture war issues have been forced to the back room by the awful economy, and the S-P's are taking full advantage. If American children are legally allowed to send explicit pictures of themselves to other kids, then say goodbye to traditional boundaries of behavior.
“The slippery slope is here.”

Now then, this is hardly Mr. O’Reilly had his most nonsensical. It’s fairly well thought out (fairly), and he makes his points mostly without offending anyone (well, other than anyone who is supportive of gay marriage, obviously). But when you actually sit back and look at it (and fact check it, hurrah for fact checking!), you realize that O’Reilly really is always pushing his agenda, whatever it may be. To demonstrate my point, I’m going to go paragraph by paragraph- that’s why I numbered them for you- to comment on Mr. O’Reilly’s commentary. Oh, this outta be good…

Paragraph 1:

James Dobson says he’s loosing the culture war. Am I the only one who thinks that that’s a good thing? Anyway, Bill, you can believe whatever crazy thing you want, that is your Constitutionally-granted right as an American citizen. And hey, you’re hardly alone. A whole bunch of people would agree with you that our society is based on old time religion Judeo-Christian morals. But, uh, they’re still wrong. American Law is actually based on the common law system of English Law. Common law itself is derived in large part from Norman Law, which was brought to Britain during that messy Norman Conquest business. Amusingly enough, Norman law is related more towards Islamic law than anything Christian, but I digress.

Not only all that, of course, but let us not forget that the Founding Fathers were… well, they weren’t really the bible thumpin’ type, by and large. They were rich, white, local politicians. Were there religious members? Oh certainly. But some were also rather opposed to religion a great deal. Thomas Jefferson finished his own New Testament 1820, where he threw out all that ‘God’ stuff. George Washington himself never publicly discussed religion outside of church. And there’s that whole Establishment Clause in the First Amendment. The point being: ‘Judeo-Christian priniciples’ aren’t what this country is all about, and never really have been.

Paragraph 2:

According to Webster’s-

Secular: 1 a: of or relating to the worldly or temporal <secular concerns> b: not overtly or specifically religious <secular music> c: not ecclesiastical or clerical <secular courts> <secular landowners>

Progressive: 1 a: of, relating to, or characterized by progress b: making use of or interested in new ideas, findings, or opportunities c: of, relating to, or constituting an educational theory marked by emphasis on the individual child, informality of classroom procedure, and encouragement of self-expression 2: of, relating to, or characterized by progression 3: moving forward or onward : advancing

Oh, sure, when those damn progressives wanted to stop child slavery that was okay, but letting people who love each other get married- Now they’ve gone too far! Hey, isn’t having the government stay out of a person’s private life- as guaranteed by the Constitutional Right to Privacy- a major tenant of Conservatives? Why is it that the whole privacy rights stuff never seems to apply to recreational drug use, abortion, or what you may or may not do in the bedroom with a willing partner (or partners, if you want to make things interesting)? Just asking. Also, just asking again, but how does he know that Vermont is the ‘most liberal state?’ He really ought to site his sources better.

Paragraph 3:

‘Citizenry of judges.’ Umm-hmm. (Whatever.) And isn’t it interesting that the governor of supposedly the ‘most liberal state’ in the union, Jim Douglas, is a Republican who has been elected to the position four times in a row? Weird, right?

Paragraph 4:

Aha! Informal fallacy alert! You’ll notice how the fourth paragraph really has nothing to do with the last two? Yeah, that’s because it doesn’t have anything to do with them at all. See, the argument here is that gay marriage is bad because….? But! Vermont is pro-gay marriage. And Vermont is pro-child molesters (according to Billy Boy. I am SO not going there today). So, obviously, gay marriage is akin to child molestation, obviously. It all makes so much sense now! (A straw man, Bill? Really? Shouldn’t you be a better debater than that?)

And yes, in O’Reilly’s world, rehabilitation is terrible, apparently. It’s not like teaching criminals why what they did was wrong ever made the world a better place or anything.

Paragraphs 5 and on:

Okay, so after we kick gay marriage in the shins a bit and remind everybody that if you’re gay you rape babies, we finally get to the point of the thing: Naked children. (Wait, what?) Amazingly, this is the part that starts to make sense, until he goes and blames it all on us pesky progressives again.

So, sexting. Horny teenagers, with their hormones a-ragin’, send naked pictures of themselves to their significant others, who, being horny teenagers themselves, show them to all their friends. The problem, other than potentially tight pants and a lifelong period of embarrassment after the fact, is technically what these minors are doing is trafficking child pornography. Technically. And while, embarrassment aside, they are usually fully consenting while taking these pictures (hell, most of the time they take the picture themselves), because in the eyes of the law it’s child pornography, these kids can end up being labeled a sexual predator for life. Because they sent a picture of themselves nekkid to their friends. It’s ridiculous! And Bill rightly points that out. You hear that Bill? I said I agreed with you! You see, I’m only hating on you when you don’t make a damn bit of sense! I’m all about reasonable arguments.

The legislature O’Reilly is talking about (and I can’t help but notice that he never mentions it’s part of a bill to actually EXPAND on the sex offender registry, but I’m sure that just slipped your mind, right Bill?) exists to try to curtail some of the ridiculousness that been going on with all this sexting stuff. It’s some potentially good legislature, and could help things chill the fug out. The Vermont legislature knows that they can’t stop this from happening, so they’re trying to make it a little less stupid at least. That being said, I think O’Reilly’s idea here might have some potential as well. Did you see, Bill! That’s twice in as many paragraphs!

Ignoring the complicated, confusing, and at times ridiculous consent laws in this country, the issue here is whether we punish what is usually a mostly harmless act to try to prevent it’s abuse, or whether we allow it to happen, knowing that no matter what we do, some old pervert will eventually get a stiffie from naked teenagers one way or another. It’s a fair debate to have, certainly, and I can see both sides of the issue. But, rather than dive right to the meat of the issue, O’Reilly has buried it under all this ‘anti-progressive’ rubbish that robs his argument of legitimacy. Instead of talk about it like adults, he has lowered himself to a sensationalist, using a real, uncomfortable issue that needs to be seriously debated as an excuse to run at the mouth against gay marriage and pinko commie progressives.

And I think, at the end of the day, my fundamental problem with Bill O’Reilly is just that. I think that he’s a smart enough guy that he really… he really ought to know better. When he spews forth a bunch of homophobic nonsense on his tv show, when his hypocrisy is just so obvious, I really think he should be smarter than that. The man calls himself a “Traditionialist” not a “Conservative,” and I admit, it does have a nice ring to it. But, personally, there’s a great many American ‘’traditions’ that I’d rather not draw attention to. Slavery, racism, mistreatment of the working class, sexism, mutton chops and driving gas guzzling cars have all been justified by American ‘tradition’ from time to time. And who fought these things, each and every time? Progressivists who thought we could make the world a better place, that’s who. (Except the mutton chops. I think people just eventually figured out that look ridiculous). So Bill, why are you so intent on make ‘progressive’ into a dirty word? What’s wrong with trying to think progressively? And would you please stop using real issues worthy of discussion as a sounding post for stupid comments? You lower the quality of the debate each and every time you do that.

Please, Bill. I really do think you’re smarter than you’ve been acting for the last 59 years. Why don’t you come inside, sit down with some coca by the fire, and have a good long think about things, hmm?