Hot News!
• RALLY FOR SAFE JOBS AT CINTAS ON OCTOBER 14!
• Proportional Representation: Christopher Smitherman v. Jeff Berding
Contact Us
v mail, fax: (214) 481-6464
e mail: click here
Events
 |
|
|
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Political exchange of the year: Bill O’Reilly vs the “coolest 8 year old girl in the world”
Posted by Andrew Warner
Out of all the things that happened this year, watching Bill O’Reilly get intellectually bitch-slapped by an eight year old, scripted or not, was one of the funniest moments of the year.
If you’ve never seen the infamous video, in which a young girl accuses the Republican party of killing more people than rap music and video games (a true fact), calls God fictitious (if that’s not true, prove it), and claims children should learn empathy in place of divisive religious beliefs; watch every second of it:
Bill O’Reilly decried the video as an act of child abuse. I guess because she used the word “ass” and told the truth about religion’s bloody history? In the spirit of fair and objective journalism, I will put O’Reilly’s stupid-ass side of the argument up as well:
Did you catch that? This is what the “child advocate” said:
“Using a child as a tool to promote propaganda, political propaganda, about which the child understands nothing… is the ultimate inhumane treatment of a child.”
So teaching a child empathy, logic, and the use of scientific and statistical knowledge to critique the theories of half-cocked pundits like Bill O’Reilly; tops child rape, child beating, and child pornography on the list of ways to inhumanely treat a child. That’s rich. Not to mention the child was “acting.”
And since the lady in the magenta jacket brought up using children for political propaganda, something came to my mind:
In the film Jesus Camp (trailer above), the filmmakers documented incidents in which children were brought to the steps of Congress to demonstrate their parents’ pro-life political beliefs. How dare they use children to get a political point across – these kids clearly don’t have the mental capacity to determine where they stand on the most highly debated political issues of the day. They also pull kids from public schools so they can spend their time teaching children bum science to refute the theory of evolution and global warming – breeding a generation of idiots to serve political goals sounds like child abuse to me. Get after ‘em O’Reilly.
Oh you can’t. They’re your future audience.
More and more I am convinced that our country is truly being run by crazy people with the kind of smarts that make you pray for the next round of natural selection. When promoting atheism and intelligent thought is child abuse, and using kids to start armies of supernatural Gods is heralded, we’ve got problems. When an 8 year old makes more sense, and displays more logic, than one of TV’s leading pundits, the country’s just plain in the tank.
Watch these videos and watch them close. These are the videos that are going to be laughed at by historians for years to come.
E-mail me at
Read my blog
• Share This Article!
Listen to this article
|  |
Register
Anonymous comments are allowed, but you can create an account above to stamp your name and to avoid typing the anti-spam code.
If you are not familiar with our rules for leaving comments, click here! The Cincinnati Beacon is not responsible for the contents of any comments. Comments do not represent the views of the moderators of The Cincinnati Beacon.
23 Dec 2006 at 11:51 am | #
For those curious as to what the link at the end of the kids website is, it’s here:
http://www.thebastardfairies.com
Turns out it’s a band. “We are going to...” is a pretty good song. Free download of their whole album.
23 Dec 2006 at 03:32 pm | #
As a mom of five, I don’t think children should be used as a way to promote political discussion or views. At 8 she has no idea what is truly right or wrong on this issue only what she has learned similar to the two girls of Prussian Blue who sing about white pride and have been taught to promote a message of intolerance towards other races.
While I don’t agree with the “expert” who stated that it was the ultimate inhumane treatment of a child, I don’t think it is something that a parent who was truly concerned with raising their child to be their own person rather than a parrot of parental beliefs should do.
23 Dec 2006 at 04:08 pm | #
Funnelcake,
Yeah, they’re a pretty sweet band too.
Lisa,
I’m not sure if I buy your comparison. It seems they have only taught the child facts (controversial ones,) and that children should be taught empathy instead of belief in, and submission to, an unseen supernatural power. You think teaching children those things is out of line?
Would you also say that teaching children religion, especially discriminatory religion (as most of them are), is in line with “Prussian Blue”?
24 Dec 2006 at 12:01 am | #
This is the kind of thing that should never have to be argued either way. In the perfect world, the people who want to believe in God can just do it and not need to worry about it, unless they’re abusing or injuring people in the process. By that same token, the people who want to be humanists can just do it and not need to worry about the Godfolk attacking them.
Unfortunately we don’t live in the perfect world.
Instead, we live in a place where some parents believe that their children are expendable. How this manifests varies, usually depending on where those parents live. In Iraq, children are sometimes used as suicide bombers. In America, they’re used as political bombs. The goal in both of these manifestations is the same. To make a point. To make a point so explosive it rocks people to the core, so to speak. It’s disgusting and it’s barbaric.
I won’t bother with what the point actually was; in this little girl’s case, the blatant use of over generalization and use of expletives to add shock value rendered it impotent and petty, in my eyes.
In closing, I’m going to pull back and look at the broader picture for a moment. What you have here is a classic case of becoming that which you hate most. In these people’s attempt to further freedom of thought, compassion, and open mindedness, they have only proven that they themselves are incapable of tolerance, incapable of living peacefully with the other beings of this planet we all inhabit. Shame on them.
24 Dec 2006 at 12:05 am | #
Thanks Andrew. I don’t believe the girl who was acting (as you rightly put it) has been scarred by this experience at all. If anything, it’s helped develop her communication skills. In comparison, Jesus Camp is little different to the way they teach the little Pakistani kids the Koran in fundamental islamic schools.
You may like to take a look at this:
http://paralleldivergence.com/2006/11/04/which-is-stronger-manfluence-or-godfluence/
24 Dec 2006 at 02:00 am | #
Kael,
To pull back and look at the even broader picture: It seems to be silly to ask children, or adults for that matter, to be “tolerant” of every point of view. Can the merit of religion not be questioned without someone being called a bigot? Is it “intolerant” to say that religion has killed far more people than hip-hop music and violent video games combined?
For example, a recent poll of British people revealed that 82% of them think religion is a tool of division and tension. Is that being intolerant or logical?
Simply put, blind tolerance should not replace thoughtful criticism of anything – religion especially. It seems to me the young actor was at least pretending to to apply thoughtful criticism towards controversial topics. That is a good thing. Religion has been around for a long time, in many different forms. Maybe the next step in religious thought is the replacement of “faith” based belief with thoughtful empathy. Who knows? We have to be able to discuss it to find out.
24 Dec 2006 at 05:15 pm | #
"In Iraq, children are sometimes used as suicide bombers.”
Kael Martuk, In Iraq, children are sometimes used as targets for American WMDs. Hundreds of thousands have been killed, “It’s disgusting and it’s barbaric”.
25 Dec 2006 at 01:56 pm | #
I love when people talk about empathy when they themselves continue to show themselves intolerant of those who think or believe differently.
25 Dec 2006 at 02:01 pm | #
Bearman, are you currently being intolerant of Andrew Warner’s beliefs, which seem different from your own?
That’s outrageous.
I will not tolerate intolerance!
25 Dec 2006 at 07:54 pm | #
Andrew, the most basic point is I don’t believe children should be used to promote any political message or agenda whether it is one I agree with or disagree with. Your interpretation of the validity of the message does not change the basic premise that an adult is using a child to promote a message. Teaching your children your views is a bit different than using your child to gain attention for your message.
I’ve taught my children my views but I also taught them that in certain areas when it comes to politics or religion as an example, that others do not share my beliefs. As they have grown they developed their own beliefs some the same as mine, some different. So just as I would not support the idea of a parent who failed in sports or acting living thru their child by forcing that child to “be” what the parent could not, I don’t support the concept of using a child the way this one has been used. An 8 year old calling out O?Reilly means the parent of that 8 year old couldn’t do it himself? It’d be like me having my 12 year old respond to you because I as an adult couldn’t handle discussing my own beliefs? Yet, an average adult “calling out” O’Reilly doesn’t get the media or the attention that using a child does.
25 Dec 2006 at 09:16 pm | #
the famous tolerance trap rears it’s ugly head again
http://townhall.com/columnists/GregKoukl/2006/12/14/the_intolerance_of_tolerance
the problems “progressives” have is for years they have accused conservatives of being intolerant for disagreeing with their ideas turning every critisism into a personal attack. while claming they are the party of tolerance (feel free to google green part and tolerance or democratic party and tolerance)
it blurs the line between what is real intolerance toward people with comment like this-
“breeding a generation of idiots to serve political goals sounds like child abuse to me.”
calling people idiots is the type of personal intolerance which should be considered unacceptable. or perhaps that is what passes for thoughtful critisism
26 Dec 2006 at 02:31 am | #
Lisa,
I see your point. At the same time I have two issues. First: The girl was primarily pointing out facts (such as religion killing more people than rap music and video games) – the primary opinion she gave was teaching empathy. Second: it hardly seems fair to teach children facts and the expression of thought, then to ban the expression of those thoughts and facts.
That being said, I do completely understand your point.
F,
I don’t like throwing out the word “tolerance” out in debates or discussion. When people are being taught “the answers,” and how to justify “the answers,” as opposed to learning the tools necessary to come up with the best answer to any question, they are being turned into idiots.
In Jesus Camp children were being groomed to debunk global warming and evolution because it did not mesh with the pre-determined answers according to the parents in the film. Robbing children of knowledge, and the ability to acquire knowledge in an intellectually honest fashion, is breeding a generation of idiots.
There is nothing intolerant about telling the truth. Regardless of political party, it is stupid to say something devoid of logic and expect people to be “tolerant” of that view.
26 Dec 2006 at 09:57 am | #
Lisa, the adult behind this production clearly can and did call out Bill O’Really, but they don’t get time on the corporate media channels, so they were very shrewd in getting their message out by using a young actress.
Why aren’t you so upset about the kids that are being brainwashed with the Jesus propaganda? Is it because you like that message better? The ideas being taught in the Jesus film are very dangerous.
I disagree that using your children to get a message out is necessarily bad. If your message is for peace and justice or against racism, why not encourage your kids to get that message out?
f, it cracks me up when people use those arguments and say that’s what “progressives” say. I don’t think so my friend, but maybe you know some “progressives” that I don’t. Could you provide an example of a prominent “progressive” that has made that argument?
Thanks!
26 Dec 2006 at 03:13 pm | #
andrew
so when you present only one side of the smoking ban science or the global warming debate are you not just as guilty as the parents how only give one side of the debate. Are you not also breeding a generation of idiots? by your definition it would seem you are
26 Dec 2006 at 03:27 pm | #
Formerly f,
Of course. How could I forget the “other side of the science.” The only probelm with that is there is no other side to the fact that second hand smoke is bad for people. There is no real, credible science that says global warming isn’t happening (unless you count the “findings” of Exxon-Mobil).
If I had kids they would be able to distinguish between science and politically motivated nonsense. I would teach them to read the comments and findings of Exxon-Mobil and to understand their agenda is more important to them than facts.
Creating another side to an issue out of thin air does not mean there is a credible alternative.
26 Dec 2006 at 11:55 pm | #
but there really is much debate behind the science that groups with an agenda (your crowd) use. should you not discuss the problems with meta anaylsis that went into the famous EPA report? how about the fact that of the 30 studies initially looked at in the 93 epa report only 5 had a confidence interval of 95% which is what it normally takes to get published in a refferred journal.
in 1998 the journal of american medical association reviewd 100 articles and found that in 63 there was evidence of harmful effects. why do you totally ignore the other 37?
then you can talk about how new york city wasnt hurt financially by the smoking ban despite the fact that hundred of bars were closed, the financial numbers did not account for the sales tax increase passed by both the state and the city, comparasions were made to the city of new york at one of its lowest economic points after teh 9/11 attacks.
oh yeah and those reports were done by organizations like the new york health department that had an agenda- just like you mock exxon mobile for
but there is still significant debate about how much of it is caused by human beings
“Dr Oreskes’s study is now routinely cited by those demanding action on climate change, including the Royal Society and Prof Sir David King, the Government’s chief scientific adviser.
advertisement
However, her unequivocal conclusions immediately raised suspicions among other academics, who knew of many papers that dissented from the pro-global warming line.
They included Dr Benny Peiser, a senior lecturer in the science faculty at Liverpool John Moores University, who decided to conduct his own analysis of the same set of 1,000 documents - and concluded that only one third backed the consensus view, while only one per cent did so explicitly.”
yep a whole 1/3 back your view you should be proud of having science totally on your side.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2005/05/01/wglob01.xml
no reason to consider those other 67% at all are there. you have it all figured out
now go back to “thoughtfully” calling people idiots
09 Jan 2007 at 07:55 pm | #
Fabulous. Fascinating. Hits the nail right on the head. Reilly is quite right of course. Indoctrinating kids is child abuse.
What is amazing is that the thought has clearly never crossed his tiny mind that indoctrinating a child with a religious myth before it is capable of intellectual analysis is one of the most prevalent, persistent and psychologically damaging forms of child abuse ever invented by the human race and we’ve been doing that to kids for thousands of years.
Any wonder we’re so screwed up?
12 Jan 2007 at 09:42 am | #
On this evidence there might be hope for America yet. I hope my child grows up to be this intelligent.
16 Jan 2007 at 09:28 am | #
Is this child particularly intelligent? It seems pretty obvious to me that the video is quickly cut and edited to sequence her rant the way someone wanted. I understand that they are trying to emulate the MTV style of video editing, but it is fairly clear that her body position changes significantly between sequential cuts, which indicates to me that someone is splicing sentences together.
I don’t doubt that she is articulate for a child of her age, but to surmise that she is intelligent because she is capable of parotting a rather silly rant is a leap I can’t make.
13 Feb 2007 at 04:43 pm | #
from the evidence i’ve seen i would say using the kid was a bit wrong but i don’t see anything horribly wrong with it, but then again i’m english and what i’ve heard 5 year olds say would make fundamentalists go on a march, but i can’t deny the indoctrination that is jesus camp is mortifying, it reminds me of a book i once read called Friedrich, and how they germans made the nazi youth. Yet because its a religion its gets a freecard and is’nt considered child abuse because apparently it teaches them to be morally incorruptable angels.......tey are so deluded
21 Mar 2007 at 09:37 pm | #
I think that a child shouldn’t be used to voice her parents political views. The “expert” is right about the fact that some nut could probably hunt her down, that’s all she’s right about though. I think that the kid should be viewing her world and making her own opinions.
10 Apr 2007 at 01:32 pm | #
Great video, sappy rhetoric. Unless parents keep their political views entirely to themselves, and combining that with our simplistic overly bureaucratic two party laughingstock of a political system we should be proud to see an 8 year old put on display. I laugh at the overly paranoid posters who say some nut is going to track them down. Parents are ALWAYS putting their kids on display, especially on TV. America is so full of hypocrites.
20 Apr 2007 at 10:01 am | #
everyone nowadays want everything so fast and if it’s possible for nothing. they don’t work to attain that something. i think this is the real problem
12 May 2008 at 01:11 pm | #
haha oreily gets pwnd by a kid and hires a child advocate to defend his bleach white ass
thats so fuckn pathetic haha
29 May 2008 at 02:40 pm | #
Great article. Well written, this will certainly help.