Factoring in Bill O'Reilly

I am not a big fan of the cable news shout fests, like The O'Reilly Factor, Hardball with Chris Matthews, or Keith Olbermann's program. Once in a while, via the constant news feed at work, when I am there in the early evening, I'll catch a few minutes of one of these programs. However, I do think that these folks perform a service, the kind of service Jon Stewart was urging Jim Cramer to perform in his now famous Daily Show interview. This service consists of asking the tough questions that we all want to ask and pressing interviewees hard for answers, not letting them off the hook in the easy manner in which they are let off on, say, ABC's This Week, and other more convivial shows.

I have to admit that at least Bill O'Reilly has a sense of humor about himself and appears on The Colbert Report, on which he is known as Papa Bear, and has also appeared on the Daily Show. Even though he and Jon Stewart could not have a more different political frame of reference, I think Stewart respects O'Reilly, at least as much as he respects anyone, though not to the point of not criticizing him, as when he lambasted O'Reilly's two-faced take on women running for high political office, depending on whether he was talking about Hilary Clinton or Sarah Palin.

For some odd reason, I linked to an interview with O'Reilly off the Yahoo home page this morning because I really had to find out who the actor was that O'Reilly would not even go see his movies- Sean Penn. I actually found the interview interesting and O'Reilly's answers to be refreshingly straightforward and candid. He has a lot of very complimentary things to say about a lot people. It was nice to read about this side of a guy whose on-air persona is gruff and often angry. On his Hollywood A-List? Clint Eastwood. His favorite Eastwood film? Unforgiven. I can't fault him for taste on that!

The part of the interview I liked the most and to which I found myself saying Yeah! to was this:

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: WHY ARE ACTORS SUCH FREQUENT TARGETS OF "THE FACTOR"?

O'Reilly: My job is to watch the powerful. A performer has a forum that other people do not, and all we ask is that they be fair. If they believe something and use their TV show, movie or concert to spout off about it, that's fine. But if we have some questions about their beliefs, I think they should answer them -- and not be drive-by people.

THE HOLLYWOOD REPORTER: WHO ARE THESE DRIVE-BY PEOPLE YOU SPEAK OF?

O'Reilly: I take it case by case. We took on George Clooney over the 9/11 charities, and we were absolutely right, but Clooney does a good job with Darfur. We took on Bruce Springsteen for things he has done at concerts because we want to know what his frame of reference is. These are powerful people, and we're not going to give them a free ride. If there was somebody screaming right-wing stuff, we'd do the same thing. But there is no one like that because if they do that in Hollywood, they're not going to work, which is an interesting story in and of itself.

After all, how many drive-by attacks has the Holy Father endured both with regard to his largely misunderstand and misinterpreted lifting of the SSPX excommunications and his all too accurate statement that condoms are not the answer to HIV/AIDs in Africa?

The on-going immorality

You've presided over the biggest corporate failure in history and help oversee a company that is a financial blackhole so large that $170 billion of tax payer money has not yet been able to fill it. Yet, unlike Lehman Bros. and Bear Stearns, but like Hank Paulson's own beloved Goldman Sachs and Citibank, you have been deemed to be too big to fail. So, what do you deserve? Your super-sized welfare payment, of course! That is why A.I.G., despite being on federally funded life-support, is doling out $165 million to their clueless, slack-jawed executives who did their part to guarantee the demise of our financial system.

I think it only fair that you are rewarded for your monumental effort that led to losing $61.7 billion in the fourth quarter of last year. A loss like that, which is the biggest in corporate history, certainly deserves a reward. It could've been worse, the fourth quarter loss could've been $61.8 billion, or $61.865 billion, thus recouping the amount their bonuses. Hey, I am a coffer's-not-as-empty-as-it-could- be kinda guy!

While there is much that is very fundamental about which I disagree with Jon Stewart, he was spot-on in his interview with Jim Cramer. Here is the three part, unedited, interview:

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 1

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 2

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

The Daily Show With Jon StewartM - Th 11p / 10c

Jim Cramer Unedited Interview Pt. 3

Daily Show Full Episodes
Important Things w/ Demetri Martin

Political Humor
Jim Cramer

Yeah, yeah, yeah, Madoff pleaded guilty to 11 counts, but he and his wife are still worth over $800 million. What really infuriates me is that he is under no obligation to talk or disclose anything. Stewart's take away quote is worth taking to heart: "When are we going to realize in this country that our wealth is work?"

Bodies are in Kansas City and I'm Ambivalent

Archbishop Naumann of Kansas City in Kansas and Bishop Finn of Kansas City- St. Joseph (Missouri) have issued a joint statement against the latest exhibition of plasticized bodies.

Todd in Kansas City has noted a parallel between this exhibit and certain elements of the veneration of relics in the Catholic Church. I was a bit disappointed that he didn't mention the 1996 reformation in the use of relics - which have been aimed specifically at respect for the body (but then again, he might not have heard). Indeed, the Church has struggled (and not always perfectly) to maintain a proper balance between veneration and abuse.

My first response to this comparison is that it is mainly a structural parallel. Yes, the practices are similar on the surface, but the meaning, the heart of what is done is totally different.

And then I was talking with some other Confirmation teachers after class last night. One of her students brought a question asked the same day by her public school teacher: why do the Catholic bishops discourage this display? The other question raised was: can I go? The bishops guide us and we listen to them, but we also have the responsibility of making a prudential judgment. We agreed that if a student goes, they do so keeping in mind the bishop's guidance; they are responsible for maintaining a reverent attitude; and they must judge what they see.

In this conversation, I brought up Todd's parallels. Todd mentions in particular a process just applied to the body of St. Padre Pio (Thanks Todd, you really made me think!). But Saints' relics are treated with deep respect and the identity of the individual is heightened. For example, a bone chip of St. Anthony of Padua may not look like much, but people kiss the glass of its reliquary (as I have), in order to honor a particular man who lived for Christ.

No, what occurred to me in this conversation was the Capuchin Ossuary in Italy. And here's the Sedlec ossuary of the Czech Republic. Anonymous bones arranged in decorative patterns, some even imitating the poses of life. Now that sounds familiar.

So what's the difference between these medieval ossuaries and the plasticized body exhibits? The entire culture is what's different. The ossuaries expressed a culture in which everything was a sign of the truth made flesh. Plasticized bodies express a culture in which nothing is a sign, everything is a stimulas, an entertainment. What's the difference? The difference is in the heart of the beholder to some degree. One could walk through plasticized bodies marveling at the wonder of the human body (as Sharon did at an exhibit near her) or one could see it all as a freak show, a novelty. Of course, that's what goes on in the medieval ossuaries today, I would think (a commentator over at Todd's Catholic Sensibility saw this happen in European cathedral. There is a difference, however. In the medieval ossuaries, the Christians who built them couldn't help but testify to the truth that they recognized: what you are we once were; what we are you will become. If I go to see the plasticized bodies, I'll have to bring that lesson in with me.