Archives

DEATH. It's one of those weeks when nothing is happening in the news but trivialities -- a freshly nominated set of Democratic candidates for president and vice president, a major terror alert in New York, New Jersey, and Washington, DC, and the first large-scale terrorist attacks on Christian churches in Iraq. Facing so little material to work with, the creative blogger must look pretty far afield to find a topic for the faithful readers. That's why our attention turned toward Bill O'Reilly in the wake of his much ballyhooed showdown with Michael Moore. Last night he devoted his 'Talking Points Memo' to defending himself against the charge by a Boston Globe columnist that he sat speechless while Moore demanded to know if he would sacrifice his child to save Fallujah. O'Reilly, of course, is convinced his performance with Moore was a triumph. Here's the transcript of the portion of the interview the Globe reporter was referring to:

MOORE: Are you against that? Stopping this war?

O'REILLY: No, we cannot leave Iraq right now, we have to…

MOORE: So, you would sacrifice your child to secure Fallujah? I want to hear you say that.

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself..

MOORE: Your child? It’s Bush sending the children there.

O'REILLY: I would sacrifice myself.

MOORE: You and I don’t go to war, because we’re too old…

O'REILLY: Because if we back down, there will be more deaths and you know it.

MOORE: Say, “I, Bill O’Reilly, would sacrifice my child to secure Fallujah.”

O'REILLY: I’m not going to say what you say, you’re a, that’s ridiculous…

MOORE: You don’t believe that. Why should Bush sacrifice the children of people across America for this?

O'REILLY: Look it’s a worldwide terrorism — I know that escapes you —

MOORE: Wait a minute, terrorism? Iraq?

O'REILLY: Yes. There are terrorist in Iraq.

MOORE: Oh really? So Iraq now is responsible for the terrorism here?

O'REILLY: Iraq aided terrorists. Don’t you know anything about any of that?

O'Reilly may be the only person who can't see that ducking the question and changing the subject do not secure rhetorical victory. Now, ordinarily, we wouldn't care if an inveterate blowhard comes up empty once in a while, but Michael Moore has gotten a lot of mileage out of this "sacrifice your children" ploy, and he and others will likely keep using it until someone with a particle of intelligence and judgment stops them in their tracks. It isn't that there's nothing to say in such situations. O'Reilly, for example, could have countered with George C. Scott's famous line from Patton: "It's not the job of an American soldier to die for his country; it's to make the other poor sonofabitch die for his." Or he could have pointed out that American soldiers are not children, but adults who have volunteered on their own to defend their country and, if necessary, to sacrifice their lives in exchange for a higher purpose -- the defense of American civilians, including children and babies yet unborn. He could have said, as a parent, I would be proud if my children chose to serve their nation in the armed forces, and if they died in doing their duty, I would be permanently grief-stricken and permanently proud of their lives. He could have said, this is America, there is no draft, and no parent has to "decide" to sacrifice a child to the military; it is always their adult offspring who make such decisions for themselves. He also could have said, "Yes."

But no. Michael Moore's question did paralyze Bill O'Reilly. His answer was lame, evasive, and non-responsive. Why? Because for all his tough talk, O'Reilly is hostage to the great American obsession with the "kids." Scarcely a night goes by that he doesn't, at some point in his program, demand some government or community action on behalf of the "kids." He does not see them as young citizens-in-training, but as something inert and vulnerable, like the family silver, that has to be protected at all costs. The subject of kids has become so sacred that it suppresses even his native common sense. And he's not alone. Sometimes it seems there's no crime we Americans wouldn't sanction as long as someone puts it in the context of the "kids."

This is all precious nonsense. Yes, we have a responsibility to protect children, but it's not the only purpose in life. It's just one of many responsibilities adults and citizens have, including duty, integrity, loyalty, honor, and bravery in the face of life's challenges. When we start taking this one particular responsibility more seriously than all the others, we are also taking ourselves too seriously, and more importantly, we are putting children on a pedestal where they don't belong. That's probably why we have stopped disciplining our children, stopped making demands on them with respect to their behavior, education, and work ethic. We treat them like little godheads, bowing and scraping whenever their name is invoked.

Is there an antidote? Don't know. But any reasonable first step must involve puncturing our inflated notions about the sanctity of childhood. Only when we've done that might we have a shot at realizing how thoroughly and disgustingly that sanctity has already been violated by allowing our little darlings to engage in whatever pursuits appeal to their narcissistic and stunted personalities.

But we are only InstaPunk. We can't provide antidotes. All we can offer is the bracing air of dark and ruthless humor. That's why our lesson for today is this link to Edward Gorey's Gashlycrumb Tinies. It's a hilarious alphabet book recounting the horrible deaths of some of the sweetest looking little kids you ever saw. Read it or don't. Laugh or draw yourself up in self righteous outrage. But spare us your complaints. We don't give a damn. Children are also human, which means they are not exempt from the human comedy. No one is. When we forget that, we tend to forget a lot of values that we just might need someday soon to save the lives of our precious kids.

Oh. And one more thing. Grow up, O'Reilly.