Rap Magazines and pop culture writers waste too much time on their illegitimate critics and pretend that they don't hear their legitimate critics. One reason that we seem to be going in a circle is because the people on both sides of the debate are not dealing with the problems but mostly the symptoms. I agree with what Jay-Z says on the track titled "The Threat" from The Black Album,  “I don’t care if you are Bill O'Reilly you won't be riling me up” - and neither will any of his ilk.

Unfortunately most of the rap music defenders are reactionaries and hence the dialogue is reactionary. The first thing for pop culture advocates and critics to do is to stop going on Bill O'Reilly to discuss pop culture. O'Reilly is not always wrong but he is unfair, biased, hypocritical and dishonest. When advocates go on his show, The O'Reilly Factor (No Spin Zone), continuously to debate, it usually turns into a useless shouting match but it also legitimizes O'Reilly as somebody objectively concerned with American popular culture.

O'Reilly is too emotional to be a host and often gets caught up in the moment and is capable of saying anything. His constant labeling of people he disagrees with as un-American is annoying. He is not qualified to discuss many of the subjects that he tackles and the contradiction of what he says are too numerous too chronicle in an internet essay. His job is to peddle fear and pretend his right wing opinions are proven facts. I may not watch his show but I have seen a few of the show's transcripts. People have to ignore this show as a legitimate option for discussing popular politics or cultures. To understand why I believe this let's look at some quotes from O'Reilly and the dates on which these events occurred. Let's just call this little segment "Bill O'Reilly (BR) Vs Reality" (RR - Reality Rican, that's me if I would have been on the show).

(BR) - I was stunned when Hilary Clinton won senator of NY. She knows nothing about New York and doesn't really care. She's been to Iowa 8 times since she's been elected and has not been to Rochester New York once" - (10/17/2001) 

(RR) - Before the comment Senator Clinton had made a minimum of 7 visits to Rochester since her election including opening up a Rochester office in mid August.

(BR) - As I stood on the House floor, I looked up and saw a bust of Moses staring at me. Now I always said that America was founded on Judeo Christian principles. But the fact that the face of Moses occupies the most prominent place in the people' house shoots down the propaganda that religious thought has no place in public policy. Moses didn't just show up in the House, He was put there. Do you all get that"? - (1/23/2001) 

(RR) - Yo, Moses is just one of 23 portraits in the House Chamber, paying tribute to historical figures who influenced American law. Hammurabi the Babylonian King lived before Moses and he is there, and even Napoleon Bonaparte is there.

(BR) - "The telling event here is that faced with violent faction using the name of Allah to kill civilians. Muslims all over the world did nothing. No demonstrations against terrorism, no peace vigils no condemnation of Al Qaeda. - (8/1/2002) 

RR- There was a candlelight vigil in Jerusalem by Palestinians and a candlelight vigil in Iran attended by 3,000 people mostly young. Most every Arab leader was quick to denounce the attacks. Jordan's King Hussein, Egyptian President Mubarak, Lebanese Prime Minister Hariri, Libyan leader Gadhafi offered aid. Other countries offering aide and condolences were Syria, Kuwait and Saudi Arabia.

BR - "The United States gives far and away more tax money to foreign countries than anyone else.. nobody else even comes close to us." (5/8/2001) 

RR- U.S. contributions are lower per capita than any member of the European Union. In 2000 the US gave only 0.1 percent of its Gross National Income as development aid, less than even Italy the least generous EU nation. Denmark gave 10 times as much on a per capita basis.

I could literally write a book with nothing but inaccurate quotes like these, made by O'Reilly (in fact somebody already did), but I'll stop here. O'Reilly frequently refuses to believe guest even when they have data to support their arguments if he does not like it. When one guest told him "60 % of all people will live in poverty for one year of their life, " O'Reilly said "never in the United States. That's bogus, that is a socialist stat. You can believe that if you want to but it's not true" (3/1/2002). The guest told him that the stats come from research at Cornell University. (BR) dismissed by saying "well, what more do I have to say?" As if information coming from an Ivy League Institution had to be wrong. 

It was the same childish thing when he attempted to tackle one of my personal favorites, which is Reform of Marijuana Laws. Keith Stroup from National Marijuana reform Laws argued that the rate of marijuana usage in Holland, where it is legal, is lower than in the U.S. "Well that's skewed because the population is much less", O'Reilly said. Stroup explained that those numbers were percentages so (BR) said "the statistics are skewed cause the government of the Netherlands won't tell us, I don't believe them for a second." 

O'Reilly fans apparently do not read much but they have strong opinions on everything as does O'Reilly himself. O'Reilly coincidentally has little respect for libraries. He said requiring libraries and bookstores to turn over their reading records to the FBI is "not a big deal since searches are predicated upon a crime or terrorist act." He likened reading a suspicious book to hiding cocaine in a library or bookstore; it's the same thing he said. Although under Patriot Act you do not have to be suspected of anything illegal. Librarians and booksellers are prohibited under law from revealing an FBI visit to anyone, including the patron whose records were seized. (Fahrenheit 911 here we come).  To avoid bogus detainment over reading material and opportunities for government record keeping on oneself it is best to buy books using cash and no longer take out from libraries. O'Reilly has some dangerous opinions on matters of civil liberties and the 1st Amendment, which makes him inconsistent at best, but usually totally disingenuous in his analysis of pop culture activity or issues. Good constructive criticism requires a more sincere and genuine personality. One that says if I harangue and attack Pepsi for hiring Ludicrous, then I will do it for Ozzie Osbourne also. That would have been a step toward O'Reilly legitimizing himself. 

There is no longer a need to pose the rhetorical question of  "why didn't you mention this since you mentioned that", to O'Reilly. It's simple, he is very selective at picking battles. Sometimes he is honest with his bigotry. Legal analyst Andrew Napolitano asked him "Do you want to take away human liberty that the constitution guarantees to all persons because of the clothing a person wears, because of where they are born and their nationality" and O'Reilly's response was "Yes, I do" (12/5/01). Transcripts prove that (BR) cannot even agree with his self on a continuing basis without constantly putting his foot in his mouth. Here's O'Reilly on March 3rd, 2001, "I've done this program for 4 ½ years and I have never attacked anybody personally on this program ever", Vs O'Reilly on January 21st, 1999 - "She's got the IQ of a tomato! "(On Monica Lewinsky). Here he is on January 31, 2001 "Now millions of Americans are losing their jobs. Why did Alan Greenspan and Bill Clinton allow this to happen?" Vs (BR) on November 12th, 2002 - "No government can make the economy better you know that".

(BR) - To Michael Stinson, who advocated a boycott of Rush Limbaugh's advertisers: "You don't want him to speak …you're against his freedom of speech." - (2/3/2003). To Al Sharpton - "I'm just saying to you, it looks to me like a boycott is, number 1 ,un-American. I don't believe in it. Number 2, hurts entry level kids trying to get some discipline in their lives and get a start (12/29/00), but in reality O'Reilly has advocated boycotts against Pepsi, France, Canada, The American Red Cross, China and various newspapers that criticize his ideas on many dates

(BR) - On bombing Serbia "Rather than put ground forces at risk where we're going to see 5 thousand Americans dead. I would rather destroy their infrastructure, totally destroy it. Any target is ok. I'd warn the people just as we did with Japan that it's coming, you better get out of there, ok but I would level that country so that there would be nothing moving - no cars no trains nothing" (4/26/99). This was an extension of something he said a 2 years earlier which was "The people of any country are ultimately responsible for the government they have…We should not target civilians. But if they don't rise up against this criminal government, they starve, period" (9/17/02) Vs (BR) - "No civilized society attacks civilians". (3/27/02). O'Reilly's earlier statements about targeting civilians, are close to Osama bin Laden's speeches but they're actually worse. In 1998 Osama told Al Jazeera "we differentiate between the man, the woman, the child and the old people. The man is a fighter, whether he carries arms or helps kill us by paying taxes and by gathering information. He is a fighter ..our enemy, the target if God gives Muslim the opportunity to do so - is every American male, whether directly fighting us or just paying taxes." Okay, Osama might be after me but at least he thinks that my wife, kids and grandparents are off limits. 

I think that the public is catching on to O'Reilly now. He came to a stand still with rapper, Cam'ron who is on the low level of intellectual rhetoric in the rap community. He needs a lot of help from his "in studio advocates" and by all the latest impressions he is losing faith in himself now that the media watch dogs like FAIR and others disseminate his inaccuracies to larger audiences. People are becoming aware of this "hoaxster". Every night, Bill O'Reilly closes his show the same way. He looks into the camera and says "the spin stops here" but in reality we all know that is where it really begins. I confirm Bill sucks, so now are you really ready to talk about Pop culture. 

Released: February 3rd, 2004

The views and opinions expressed herein by the author do not necessarily represent the opinions or position of Playahata.com.