There is one word that was instrumental in Jon Stewart winning the debate against O’Reilly – consistency as in consistency in principle reflected by action. Stewart may be incorrect in his view that “Common” was appropriately invited to the White House, but he is correct, as shown by the examples he cited that Fox News, including O’Reilly himself, has a history of shifting principles to prove their end positions. I have a son who is a Massachusetts State Trooper, and I believe that the timing of the visit by Common was unfortunate. However, Common has a right to believe what he believes, and he has an equal right to express those beliefs no matter how conventional or controversial they may be. There is a great difference between believing in the innocence of a convicted cop killer and in advocating such behavior. Common has expressed support for the former, and to my knowledge, he has never expressed support for, or an acceptance of the second.
If you are still interested in the debate after watching Part 1, here is the conclusion:
Perhaps if Mr. O’Reilly stuck to reporting on the basis of opinion formed by analyzing objective reality as opposed to a reality of his choosing, he would win more of these debates. This is not to say that Mr. Stewart is more balanced and objective, philosophically, but in this case, his identification of a gross inconsistency in targeting White House guests/invitees gives him the upper hand. It serves as a hurdle that, in my view, Mr. O’Reilly fails to clear even marginally.
I would like to extend my deepest respect for all law enforcement officials during this memorial period, and my deepest sympathies to all of those persons who are still grieving and who have suffered the loss of their loved ones in the line of duty. We can never honor enough those who serve and protect us day in and day out. Thank you seems grossly inadequate, but it is heartfelt and deeply personal for me; so, thank you.
nolanreviews said:
Do you think that Common was invited to the White House because he is black? From what I’ve seen, the Obamas appear to be very racist; Michelle Obama is particularly obvious about it. What are your thoughts about this?
--Rick said:
I think, based upon what I’ve read, that “Common” was invited because the First Lady likes his music and poetry. His poetry does lean left; however, I don’t think it leans as far left as some of the President’s policies and goals do. I see “Common” as a man who is not widely read, who has a limited world view and no desire to expand it beyond what it is. At the end of the poem/rap that concludes this comment, when he speaks of holding up a peace sign while being “strapped”, is he saying that he’s O.K. with luring police in for a killing, or is he saying that he wants peace as much as anyone else, but his reality forces him to live cynically and without trust? I try not to think in terms of color in such matters and I think if you go over the list of guests invited to entertain at the White House you will find their politics more common than “Common’s” race.
To hear Common, click here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LssFolrpiD4&feature=player_detailpage. I can tell you from experience growing up in a federal housing project that it is much easier to develop a jaundiced bunker mentality than it is to walk around confidently with your head up and your jaw exposed. That is especially true when one has nothing to lean on, or to learn from, either an inner drive to get more from life or a mentor driven source of inspiration to show you how to rise above your circumstance. Some are blessed with finding both.
If you haven’t done so, already, read “Angela’s Ashes” by Frank McCourt and examine how a boy struggles through poverty to become a successful writer, actor and so much more. He’s a man who could have surrendered to a life of misery like his alcoholic father who both abandoned him and his siblings, his mother, as well as reality itself in preference to drink, fantasy and singing songs pledging to die for Ireland. He was a boy who was confused and terrorized by the Catholic Church and a person who was never quite accepted because he had his father’s strange ways and the look of a ne’er do well “Presbyterian from the North”.
More often than not, we are closer to each other because of our status than we are because of our similar race, color, or creed. It’s easy to be jaundiced and distrustful when you are living a dog-pile existence; esecially in the presence of those who plea for others to come to your aid for the “common good”. How many rich liberals who claim to find people without health care coverage unjust do you suppose are actually paying for the health care of a total stranger in need out of their sense of their righteous moral indignation toward any system that would demand self-reliance as a primary? The only thing that is keeping these social zealots from adopting a poor family and paying for that family’s health care is a reluctance to dig into their own wallets and put their money where their mouth is. As former President Bush was fond of saying, they are the do-gooders who are all hat and no cattle. It’s much more satisfying for them to force others to carry that burden and less rewarding to act quietly, without fanfare behind the scenes; or to lead by example.
Poor people are poor; most are not stupid. Some actually pull themselves out deep holes and attain moderate success. Almost all recongnize when they are being patronized or used. Hence the acquired distrust of the system, their anger and their lack of loyalty or faith in anyone not of their blood or in a position to give them something for playing their part in the political theater of the absurd. The Obama’s can’t really identify with urban life; so, they invite street poets to the White House to show everyone how cool they are, how much they care and understand the plight of people living tough existences, and to convince these unfortunate souls (some self-made unfortunates) that someone in power is on their side.
Of course, those on the outside looking in know that these power brokers are full of crap and are more interested in good television, radio and print reports. The smart ones learn not to rely on anyone other than themselves and as a corollary, to expect no one else to rely upon them unless it is by mutual agreement. Each person has their own life to live, and if they are ever to find a true purpose and morality in their personal existence, they must live in pursuit of the things that interest them, that make them happy, and above all, they must be free to work, to earn, to acquire and to keep the fruits of their labor, their creations and their minds. The alternative is to remain stuck inside someone else’s world view and to live for the amusement or utility of others so long as they feed, clothe and shelter the masses and provide power to the treadmill they’ve assigned to each of the collective they rule.