Rush: Look, all I'm telling you is that you've gotta give socialism a fair shake for the folks. I'm not gonna sit here and condemn it like these right-wingers are. We've got to give socialism a fair shake, and we here at the Look, all I'm telling you is that you've gotta give socialism a fair shake for the folks. I'm not gonna sit here and condemn it like these right-wingers are. We've got to give socialism a fair shake, and we here at the Factor Factor are going to give socialism, even communism, a fair shake. We'll do an in-depth investigation and we'll report back because we're not knee-jerking and we are looking out for the folks...we just don't like all this Obama-bashing here at the are going to give socialism, even communism, a fair shake. We'll do an in-depth investigation and we'll report back because we're not knee-jerking and we are looking out for the folks...we just don't like all this Obama-bashing here at the Factor Factor, that's for these extreme right-wingers. This Obama-bashing is not productive, the Bush-bashing wasn't productive. We're going to give socialism and the destruction of the country a fair examination, and if we determine that Obama's destroying the country, we'll report it fairly.

That is the heart of Limbaugh's annoyance, that I have criticized some conservatives for overdoing the socialistic stuff. Apparently, Rush does not agree with me.

Caller: Bill O'Reilly, sir, I think Obama is the most arrogant, egotistical man I have ever known. Bill O'Reilly, sir, I think Obama is the most arrogant, egotistical man I have ever known.

Rush: I don't care about that. What do you think of me? Am I arrogant, too? If Obama's arrogant, n.o.body can be more arrogant than I am. What do you think of me, where have I gone wrong here? I don't care about that. What do you think of me? Am I arrogant, too? If Obama's arrogant, n.o.body can be more arrogant than I am. What do you think of me, where have I gone wrong here?

The "arrogant" charge is interesting. I'm not confirming or denying my arrogance or anyone else's. I will say this, however. If you state an opinion with authority in this country, you will be branded as arrogant, that's just the way we are. I believe Rush Limbaugh may have experienced that himself. Or am I wrong, Rush?

So here's the question: Was Limbaugh being a Pinhead during that routine? Or does he have me down pat? You make the call.

I've met Rush Limbaugh a couple of times, but we've never had an actual conversation. Whenever the left-wing press attacks me, saying that I am some kind of conservative zealot, I smile and think of old Rush. He would certainly disagree.

Mr. Limbaugh a.n.a.lyzes current events from a conservative perspective and is totally up-front about it. So are Sean Hannity and most other right-wing commentators. They tell you exactly who they are, and from there the game is on. If you are on the Left, you'll get mocked for sure. If you are someone like me, a traditional-minded independent, you will not be trusted. It's all about orthodoxy. The rules of radio talk are rigid and time-honored. Speaking to the choir can be extremely profitable, and there's nothing wrong with doing that. The choir needs entertainment, too!

By contrast, my a.n.a.lysis of Barack Obama and everything else in the public arena is fact-based, not ideological. The President, as I've suggested, cannot be accurately branded a "socialist" until he starts messing around with private property. You can rightly call some of his policies "socialistic"-and I have-but saying Obama is the El Norte version of Hugo Chavez is absurd.

Still, I kind of enjoyed being called "arrogant" by Rush Limbaugh. Not too many folks reach that plateau in life. My eighth-grade teacher agreed with Rush, so maybe he's on to something. And here's an interesting point. There is an important difference between being attacked by a guy like Limbaugh on the Right and, say, the Media Matters outfit on the Left: Limbaugh seeks to mock mock me, while the Matters fanatics want to me, while the Matters fanatics want to harm harm me. The intent of the scrutiny is very interesting. It is sticks and stones versus take him out. So I react accordingly. me. The intent of the scrutiny is very interesting. It is sticks and stones versus take him out. So I react accordingly.

CHAPTER 4

Your Place in a Changing America

THE FIRST DECADE of the twenty-first century was brutal for many of us. The terror attack on 9/11 dramatically changed the country, and then the vicious recession that began in the fall of 2008 altered it yet again. The working American was a.s.saulted by attacks from Muslim jihadists overseas, then suffered because greedy corporate investors right here at home ransacked America's financial system. Both of these a.s.saults damaged our security in very personal ways. of the twenty-first century was brutal for many of us. The terror attack on 9/11 dramatically changed the country, and then the vicious recession that began in the fall of 2008 altered it yet again. The working American was a.s.saulted by attacks from Muslim jihadists overseas, then suffered because greedy corporate investors right here at home ransacked America's financial system. Both of these a.s.saults damaged our security in very personal ways.

Unfortunately, meaningful security requires money (although the harsh truth is that you can never be fully protected). Since your humble correspondent has been both poor and rich in his life (and has been the man in the middle along the way, too), I've learned firsthand how difficult all positions can be. But let's focus on the two extremes first.

RICH MAN, POOR MAN The impoverished person is simply worn down by how few options are available to him or her, while the wealthy person is worn down by having to be on guard all the time. all the time. If you have money, chances are someone else wants to take it from you. The more a.s.sets you have, the more security you need. The fewer a.s.sets you have, the less security you're able to buy. Poor people are at the mercy of many things they cannot control. Rich people are at the mercy of bad people who target them. If you have money, chances are someone else wants to take it from you. The more a.s.sets you have, the more security you need. The fewer a.s.sets you have, the less security you're able to buy. Poor people are at the mercy of many things they cannot control. Rich people are at the mercy of bad people who target them.

Perhaps the ultimate Pinhead in the world of wealth is the swindler Bernie Madoff, whose Ponzi scheme caused at least $65 billion to go up in flames and many people to get burned in the process. Here's a guy who betrayed his family, friends, and business a.s.sociates without remorse. If you examine the Madoff file, you will see an example of true evil. Some folks I know can't understand evil; they don't even think it exists.

Swindler Bernie Madoff, who faced a prison sentence of up to 150 years, arrives at federal court in New York, where he pleaded guilty to charges that he engineered one of the largest investment scams in U.S. history.

a.s.sociated Press/AP Photographed by Mary Altaffer But exist it does, and Madoff is one of the dark side's most devious poster boys. He fleeced wealthy clients and friends, completely ruining many of them. One day they were in control of their lives; the next day whatever financial security they thought they had was completely gone. And n.o.body could bring it back And n.o.body could bring it back.

Think about that for a moment. You work hard all your life to provide stability and prosperity for yourself and your loved ones, then a country club criminal, a lowlife punk in a three-thousand-dollar suit, steals it. And there is absolutely nothing you can do. Nothing.

The message here is that evil chases all of us. Most of the time it comes in small doses, not supersize Madoff-type doses, so the world around us doesn't always notice as much. Right now, some Americans feel that the federal government is evil, too, and that society, in general, is going to h.e.l.l. So let's take a look at both of those points of view.

TO h.e.l.l IN A HANDBASKET?

There is no question that American society is changing. Polls show that atheism is on the rise and organized religion is in decline. On the secular front, we've seen the legalization of soft drugs and of gay marriage in some places, and because many teachers are committed liberals, our children are being educated in a system that skews left big-time. Do such things bode well for us?

As I've written in previous books, I have always believed there is great strength in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and while I know that I am a sinner, I try my best to embrace principles like self-reliance, loyalty, and fairness. I also do not judge the personal conduct of others, leaving that to a deity whom I believe not only exists but is active in the world.

Evaluating public policy, not private behavior, is my primary job, although if the two converge in a way that's harmful to you, then I could be vocal about it, as I will be below on the subject of celebrity scandals invading our lives. And if I'm truly and deeply concerned about it, I could swing into action, as I have over the vicious attack the Westboro Baptist Church launched on Lance Corporal Matthew Snyder's family, which warrants its own discussion in chapter 6.

Let's begin with the example of Tiger Woods. This is a case where a celebrity's indiscretions didn't necessarily hurt the public-they simply provided t.i.tillation. But it was actually the ma.s.s marketing of the scandal that I believe hurt everyone-not just Tiger, his wife, and the sport of golf, but you and me and even the kids who were exposed to the all-pervasive coverage.

The embarra.s.sing exposition had to be reported as a matter of public record, but the Factor Factor stayed away from reveling in the man's misery, primarily because only Pinheads enjoy watching others experience pain. stayed away from reveling in the man's misery, primarily because only Pinheads enjoy watching others experience pain.

Is Woods a Pinhead? In the scandal area, certainly. He hurt his family and others who admired him. And if you enjoyed that story, you are a Pinhead as well. It is simply not n.o.ble to derive satisfaction from the suffering of others, even if they deserve it. I did not feel the golfer's pain, but I did empathize with the collapse of a fellow human being and the suffering of those around him. Like his wife. Like his mother. I did not enjoy reading about that case, especially when accusers and their lawyers greedily scurried out from under their rocks.

So it is true that all of us Americans are experiencing cultural changes on many different levels. Some are legislated, some are not. Some of these changes are compounded and even magnified by repeated images in the media. This kind of attention not only turns private hurt into public shame but also runs the risk of desensitizing us as a culture, too.

But let's shift the focus now from the superstar to the average Joe.

THE MAN IN THE MIDDLE The individual American appears to be rapidly losing power. Wages have been pretty much stagnant for more than a decade. Working people are getting by but not moving up. It is d.a.m.ned difficult to pay your bills and taxes and also save a few bucks, is it not?

President Obama and his team want to pa.s.s laws that put even more power and money in the hands of the federal government; that, very simply, is my primary beef with them. The more shots are called from Washington, the fewer options we the people have in our own lives. Rugged individualism made this country great, not ent.i.tlement programs rigged to provide "income redistribution."

The health care mess is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. The problems in the health system might have been solved without a ma.s.sive government intrusion in the following ways: a combination of strict federal oversight on insurance, drug, and medical concerns along with increased health insurance compet.i.tion across state lines, as well as tort reform so that corrupt lawyers cannot bankrupt medical people. All of these together would have brought health care costs down significantly. We'll provide more details on this later.

But a marketplace solution is not what progressive Americans really want. Misleading political rhetoric aside, their vision is for the feds to control health care and pretty much every other industry. In that way, Washington could impose the big liberal tenet of "economic justice" on the country. I delve deeply into this strategy in my book Culture Warrior Culture Warrior. Briefly put, for the committed Left, an economy controlled by the government combined with punitive taxation of the rich is "change you can believe in." In the 2008 presidential campaign, John McCain failed to make voters understand what Barack Obama really had in mind. Senator McCain simply did not spell out the freedom issue: Do you want to control your life, or do you want the Obama administration to do it for you?

That's why the Tea Party people are so angry. They don't want the government running their lives and spending so much money that the United States becomes insolvent. But the freedom message that many Tea Party protesters promote is being lost because a dishonest national press is portraying the movement as fringe Far Right hysteria. This is another huge change in America: a partisan press using its power to demonize those who do not adhere to a left-wing view of life. Once the Tea Party folks showed up wearing sweatshirts and baseball caps, they became targets for the elite sn.o.bs who dominate the mainstream media. Yes, most of them are Pinheads; they just can't help it. If an everyday American is in view, many media people feel the need to sigh. Don't you just love that?

SOME HONEY WITH THAT TEA?

Unfortunately, some Tea Party people play into the bogus Far Right stereotype by demonizing President Obama in crude ways. If instead they were to concentrate on freedom and avoid personal attacks, they might prosper more in the future. Most Americans respond to the freedom issue and do not yet realize that their own options in life are being substantially eroded in the age of Obama.

That being said, I don't despise President Obama because he's a big-government liberal. I just think his philosophy will weaken the country in both the long and short run. I could be wrong, and the President could be right. We'll see. As I have said before, I admire what the President has accomplished in his life (please don't tell Rush Limbaugh) and how he overcame a childhood that could have ruined him. There is much good in Mr. Obama's story, but his overall philosophy remains questionable, as many Americans are beginning to understand.

By the way, on the Factor Factor, I have urged the President to hire me as his top adviser. If he would do that one thing, all would turn out okay. My first move would be to bring some Tea Party people to the White House. I wouldn't serve up a pot of Earl Grey, but maybe some beer and soda. Kinda like that Ma.s.sachusetts cop and professor deal. Detente is good. It's Patriotic.

THE TECH OFFENSIVE Let's leave politics for a moment and examine a huge danger that is looming large in America: the rise of the machines! I'm not playing around. High-tech gizmos are now dominating the lives of many Americans, particularly the young. With so much time being spent in unreal digital precincts, interpersonal relationships, beginning with family life, are suffering. This dramatic change is already affecting us all, and it will only get worse as the machines become even more sophisticated and, for some, addictive.

Here's a good example. No longer are loyalty and true friendship admired or even sought after in many quarters. What's being sold today in their place is instant gratification. Just turn on a computer, and you can create your own world. Who needs to deal with real problems and come up with effective solutions when escape is only a finger-click away? Why bother cultivating close personal relationships when you can chat with thousands and never even leave your home?

I see the machine culture thriving among some of the younger people working at Fox News. Their entire lives revolve around gadgets: iPods, cell phones, BlackBerries, what have you. Their attention is usurped and their minds are constantly cluttered by these toys. When I encourage big-picture thinking and creative storytelling, I get a lot of blank stares. With machines constantly pulsating signals inside their heads, it is hard for young people to develop insights and problem-solving skills. Will the USA become a nation of robots? Could happen.

Don't get me wrong, I see how these gadgets have worked to some people's short-term advantage, but it's the long term I'm interested in. It was the high-tech age that made it so much easier for Barack Obama's nonspecific message of hope and change to catch fire. In fact, his use of flashy gizmos also contributed to the perception that John McCain was old-fashioned. Obama represented the quick-text-message era, while McCain seemed to harken back to the old rotary phone (if you know what that is).

Just the same, John McCain is a true Patriot. I selected him as my 2009 "Person of the Year" because he consistently stood up for what is right during a very turbulent year.

You may remember that it was Senator McCain who told the world that the Iranian dissidents who are trying to overthrow that awful government needed international support. He urged apathetic nations to rally around freedom-loving Iranians, but few countries did-not even the United States. President Obama's posture indicated that America was not going to intrude in Iran's internal affairs. On June 23, 2009, the President said this: "I've made it clear that the United States respects the sovereignty of the Islamic Republic of Iran, and is not interfering with Iran's affairs."

Later on, the President showed a bit more sympathy for the Iranian rebels' determination to toss out the mullahs, but still did not lend his moral authority to their cause.

Mr. Obama's words on Iran drove Senator McCain crazy, as they should have. I can't help but think that if the senator had displayed the same pa.s.sion during his campaign in 2008 that he has shown regarding key issues in 2009, he might be the one facing down Iran, not Barack Obama.

Sen. John McCain (R-AZ, center center), my pick as "Person of the Year" in 2009, speaks at a press conference on Capitol Hill regarding possible human rights sanctions against Iran. With him are Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-CT, left left) and Sen. Evan Bayh (D-IN, right right).

a.s.sociated Press/AP Photographed by Manuel Balce Ceneta But back to my original point-John McCain did not mount a full-court press campaign; he did not blitz his opponent. And he certainly did not use gadgets to his advantage. He ran a measured race and got his b.u.t.t kicked because, as the senator found out, we are indeed living in a changing America. Machines now carry messages like lightning. The old-time methods of public discourse are pretty much a thing of the past.

There is some good news in all of this, however. When the tweets, Facebook updates, and YouTube videos subside, the folks seem to be still keeping an open mind about events. Thus, the modern guy, Mr. Obama, is now being evaluated based on performance, not some high-tech propaganda. This gives me hope. A President should rise and fall based on what he actually does, not what he says says.

But back to you you, the person who is reading this book. My G.o.d, how quaint is that?! You're holding an actual book and turning its pages. Relish the experience. It won't be long before that and many other things we have taken for granted become extinct, too. Very soon there'll be a machine that distills the knowledge in books so it can be fed intravenously into your brain without any work on your part. Yet another convenience that will rob us of personal creativity.

So the question becomes, what should you do in the face of great change?

Well, try this: don't you change unless it helps your life.

My "social networking" is done in person. I don't twitter. Or tweet, or whatever they call it. Also, I don't chat online, use an iPod, or rely on text messaging. I refuse to do these things because they do not help me. Let's take twittering, for example. Apparently, you use this medium to tell other people what you are doing all day, every day. But why? Why do you want folks to know your daily experiences? Does that help you in any way? Doesn't that take time away from other stuff that could advance your life, help you achieve something of value? I have asked some Twitter people why they do it, and the consensus is, "It's fun." Okay, fun is good as long as no one, including you, gets hurt. So if tweeting is entertaining for you, well, tweet hardy. For me, however, high-tech blathering is frittering away my time, which is already limited by a crowded work and home schedule.

I like to read. I learn things from reading books, magazines, and newspapers (G.o.d help me). I'm not sure I'd be learning a lot reading Taylor Swift's daily diary. As always, I could be wrong.

I also learn things from watching people and taking walks without headphones on. On these walks, I think and look at actual life. Machines are banned.

So how boring am I? Up there with Lawrence Welk, right? If you don't know old Lawrence, he was a bland bandleader whom your grandmother might have liked way back in the 1960s. Welk's big line was, "And a one and a two..." Stupefying.

Unlike Lawrence Welk, I am not boring on TV; at least, that's what the ratings and research indicate. Thank G.o.d, millions of folks think the presentation on The O'Reilly Factor The O'Reilly Factor is unique and spontaneous. That's because I actually think about what I'm going to do and say on the program. I think about this without Lady Gaga screaming in my ear, with all due respect to Ms. Gaga, a marketing genius. is unique and spontaneous. That's because I actually think about what I'm going to do and say on the program. I think about this without Lady Gaga screaming in my ear, with all due respect to Ms. Gaga, a marketing genius.

Also, because I read an enormous amount, I am prepared to back up my opinions with actual facts. That separates me from many TV talking heads who spend hours in makeup with headphones on, bopping to the Crocodile Rock or something. Sorry if I sound supercilious, but I have not succ.u.mbed to the machine life. That, I believe, has helped me maintain success.

Sadly, it is hard to convince some younger folks that my strategy has merit. Compelling ideas come into clear minds. Walking in a forest or on a beach is good for clarity and creativity. Especially if you do this without Jay-Z (another marketing genius) rapping directly into your eardrum. Are you hearing me on this? Are you still able to hear?

The writer Stephen King recently wrote a novel in which cell phone users turned into violent zombies. He was obviously satirizing our machine-saturated society. But some folks actually are high-tech zombies in real life; they have lost the ability to experience reality. Want s.e.x? You can get facsimile all over the Net. Want a date? You can chat up people all day long. Want food? Well, the Net can't feed you yet, but I'll bet they're working on it.

So let's return to the central question: How does a changing America directly affect you? The election of Barack Obama is ill.u.s.tration number one. He raised millions on the Net and convinced younger voters to support him in great numbers. Now, the President and his crew are affecting all of our lives. Without cybers.p.a.ce, I do not believe an inexperienced politician like Obama would have been elected to the most powerful position in the world. Remember, Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton had lengthy political resumes when they were elected. Barack Obama was a senator for less than two years, and did little of substance in his time on the Hill.

President Obama walks along the White House colonnade with his beloved BlackBerry!

White House The second change we all have to deal with is raising children. Have you tried having a conversation with a kid lately? It's never been easy, but these days it's a killer. Often, you have to literally yank portable machines out of their hands to get kids' attention. Predictably, the urchins resent the intrusion on their fun, so right away we adults are not in a great communication position.

Listen to this: according to a Kaiser Family Foundation study, American kids ages eight to eighteen spend 7.5 hours a day on average consuming electronic stimulation. Do the math. The kid sleeps nine hours, then goes to school for six. Therefore, Sally or Brendan has only 2.5 free hours a day unattached to machines. This is unbelievable. When do children play outside? When do they have conversations? If you think this isn't going to change the United States very soon, you're a Pinhead. This is BIG.

Here's the kid chart from Kaiser:

Watching TV 4.5 hours a dayListening to music 2.5 hours a dayTalking on cell phones 30 minutes a dayPlaying video games 1.3 hours a dayText messaging 1.5 hours a dayNonschool computer use 1.5 hours a day

Note that the chart's data accounts for the fact that each child has a different profile. Kaiser essentially pooled the information to come up with an average of total daily machine intrusion time. The numbers, of course, make the situation crystal clear: American children are hooked on tech, and the unintended consequences of that will radically change our society and country.

The Way We Were In my house when I was growing up, we had a kitchen blender, a TV, and a few radios. Machine time was slim. Despite that, there wasn't much parent/kid chat, as I ill.u.s.trated in my previous book, A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity A Bold Fresh Piece of Humanity. At the nightly dinner table, my sister and I were held captive, since we had no escape from whatever my father and mother wanted to drop on us.

A sample conversation went like this:

Bill O'Reilly Sr.: These potatoes are great, aren't they? Why aren't you eating them, son? These potatoes are great, aren't they? Why aren't you eating them, son?

Bill O'Reilly Jr.: Aren't these instant potatoes? They aren't real, are they, Mom? Aren't these instant potatoes? They aren't real, are they, Mom?

Mom: There's no difference, honey. There's no difference, honey.

Senior: Eat them, okay? Janet, you're not eating your potatoes, either. Eat them, okay? Janet, you're not eating your potatoes, either.

Janet: Mmmmm. Mmmmm.

Senior: Good peas, Mom. Kids, eat your peas. Good peas, Mom. Kids, eat your peas.

Junior: Are these instant peas? Are these instant peas?

Senior: There's no such thing as instant peas. EAT THEM! There's no such thing as instant peas. EAT THEM!

Junior [ [points to Janet]: She's not eating her peas. Why are you picking on me? It's not fair.

Senior: We don't waste food in this house! I want the potatoes and peas eaten. We don't waste food in this house! I want the potatoes and peas eaten.

Junior: I have to go to the bathroom. I have to go to the bathroom.

Senior: You'll hold it until the potatoes and peas are gone. You'll hold it until the potatoes and peas are gone.

Mom: Just eat up, kids, and then there's Oreos for dessert. Just eat up, kids, and then there's Oreos for dessert.