To listen to an audio of this article and find other articles by this author, visit: theinspiringrevolutionsblog.blogspot.com The Robot Bill O’Reilly Written on July 8, 2008 When listening to the mainstream media, it’s important to get in the habit of questioning what is said so that you can separate the opinions from the facts and dig beneath the surface of subjective judgments to find the truths that lie underneath. By doing so, you can learn a lot about the nature of our world and the source of our problems. The challenge for viewers is that many media outlets often don’t engage in the practice of questioning themselves. In fact, the TV shows that express opinions often attempt to be seen as news outlets, and their anchors become robotic, saying the same thing over and over again and espousing the same beliefs continuously. We are learning beings, and when you learn you change. So if you don’t change, you are more robotic than human in your thinking. Robots are programmed and continue to act without adjusting (unless they are programmed to adjust in a specific way). On the other hand, the human ability to question can break down the boundaries of our “robotic” ways so that we are open to learn and develop in our view of ourselves and the world. And so, media outlets and anchors who hold strongly to their opinionated (and often self-interested) views on world events show themselves to be more robotic than human in their thinking and should thoroughly be questioned. What’s an example? Back in late April, Bill O'Reilly interviewed Hillary Clinton and, during the interview, questioned Clinton on her tax policies. In response to her plan to raise taxes on the wealthy in order to fund various socially oriented policies (as well as to lower middle class taxes), he commented on the fact that her policy was “income redistribution,” which was “socialism” (or had a “socialist component.”). Furthermore, the tone of the conversation framed the word “socialism” as if it was a “bad” word (as it is often framed in the mainstream American dialogue). And yet, for O’Reilly to believe that socialism is “wrong” is to declare himself a hypocrite. How so? Let’s start by exploring the word “socialism,” and what it actually means. First, when “ism” is at the end of a word, it means that we are talking about a “system, manner, condition, or characteristic” of the first part of the word. In the case of “socialism,” the first part of the word is “social,” which is defined as something “of or relating to society.” Taking our definition further, the word “society” represents “a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine, and act toward a common goal.” “Socialism” is therefore defined as a system that relates to a number of people joined together by mutual consent to deliberate, determine, and act toward a common goal. So how does this relate to Bill O’Reilly’s hypocrisy? Well, O’Reilly has expressed a good deal of pride for his and other people’s patriotism, specifically giving high praise for the patriotism that is demonstrated by those taking part in the military. But what is a “patriot?” A patriot is “a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country.” So “patriotism” can be defined as a condition or characteristic of loving, supporting, and defending one’s country. And what is a country? It is a society! It is a number of people joined together by mutual consent to deliberate, determine, and act toward a common goal. Therefore, by definition, our country is a socialist concept and patriotism for our country is driven by socialist ideals. O’Reilly happens to support socialism as it relates to the military but not as it relates to the economy. Now I can’t possibly know what causes him to express this hypocrisy, but logical thinking might lead one to the possibility that it could be because he has a more immediate self-interest in one expression, but not in the other. To further your understanding of this idea, simply think about the military. It is a few people who have a “wealth” of certain resources that others don’t have (meaning there is an inequality of those resources), and they give their wealth to others. In this way, the few (who are in the military) give to the many (who are in the general public). What is it that they give? They give military protection that promotes national security. Income redistribution works the same way when there is an inequality in a different context. It’s just a different part of life – the economy. A few people, with a wealth of certain resources, give their type of wealth to others. And why would they do this? They would also do it for their country (i.e., “society”). So the military is a system relating to society and the economy is also a system relating to society, and they are both socialist systems because a country itself is based on a socialist concept! In this way, Bill O’Reilly’s uneven support for the redistribution tendencies of unequal societies is a hypocrisy that he will never realize unless he is willing to step back, reflect on, and question the robotic repetitions of his self-interested and politically-biased assertions. And we can learn a lot from him. In our questioning of his personal mantras, we can learn to question ourselves in order to see where we too demonstrate robotic tendencies; where we too fail to question our assumptions and realize our hypocrisies; and where we too take solace in our rigid, self-interested positions in order to miss the learning that comes from listening to another way. If you always believe you are “right,” you will inevitably be wrong. But if you are always open to being wrong, right will come to your aid. The truth will always set us free. To learn more about the trends of our constantly changing global world, purchase Thriving at the Brink of Disaster at: www.inspiringrevolutions.com/thriving.php To buy a physical copy (which is currently on sale) of The Makings of a President, click the link below: www.inspiringrevolutions.com/presidentbook.php To find out how to get your free eBook copy of The Makings of a President, click the link below: www.inspiringrevolutions.com/president To begin applying these ideas to your own life, answer the questions below: - Where in your life do you find yourself always defending a certain position? What is the position? What is the opposite position? And where is the truth within that position? - What interests are behind (and supported by) your position? What are the reasons for it? - What interests are behind (and supported by) the opposite position? What are its reasons? - How can both interests (and reasons) be fulfilled? If it is not possible, what would you and others need to do to make it possible? - What TV shows do you watch because it supports your positions? How can you question its positions? Where are the hypocrisies in its positions? - What TV shows do you watch because it bashes other positions? How can you accept other positions? How can you see the commonality that exists beyond your differences? How can the two ways achieve their desired results by complementing one another? - Do you care more about being right or discovering truth? Do you care more about your own interests, about others’ interests, or about meeting the interests of both sides of any given conflict?