How Bill O'Reilly Persuaded Me to Join the ACLU
Problem is, each time I come close to joining, the ACLU takes some public, statist position on the ADA, affirmative action, speech codes, or tries to defend a positive right -- a right to education, for example, or a right to access to the welfare state.
Last night I was flipping through the channels, and happened on the beginning of Bill O'Reilly's show just as we was ticking off his "Talking Points" segment. O'Reilly jumped off on the ACLU's oppposition to New York City subway searches, then ran off a list of anti-terror measures the ACLU has opposed since 9/11. This was supposed to make me hate the ACLU. As it turns out, I oppose just about every anti-terror proposal on O'Reilly's list of outrages.
Then, O'Reilly went off the deep end. Excerpt:
"Talking Points" could go on and on, but you get the picture. If the ACLU ever wants money, it should contact the Al Qaeda fundraisers. No organization in America enables terrorism as much as the ACLU, period. It is putting your life in danger. And that is no exaggeration.That was more than enough for me. This morning, I became one of those people Bill O'Reilly wants you to stop doing business with.
Unfortunately, there's nothing we can do about it. No way to stop it. The ACLU operates within the law and uses the legal system to oppose the war on terror. And there are enough loony judges around to give that organization power, especially here in New York City and in San Francisco.
The only thing we can do is hold people who raise and give money to the ACLU accountable. In the weeks to come,"The Factor" will tell you who these people and organizations are, so you can decide whether or not you want to do business with them.
I am now a card-carrying member of the ACLU. And it's thanks to Bill O'Reilly.
comments powered by Disqus
John T. Kennedy - 8/9/2005
"I can make as good of a case that the right to vote is as positive a right as the right to clean water or an adequate standard of living."
Becuase a right to vote *is* a positive right.
John T. Kennedy - 8/9/2005
...need not be your friend.
The fact that Bill O'Reilly makes stupid arguments against the ACLU is a really poor reason for joining. I'm sure he has stupid arguments against Al Qeada too.
chris l pettit - 8/7/2005
I can't believe that there are those still promotong the fallacy of positive and negative rights...
Every right has positive and negative aspects. I can make as good of a case that the right to vote is as positive a right as the right to clean water or an adequate standard of living.
I suppose there were people who thought the Earth was flat for a while...as well as those who still believe in creationism...it doesnt surprise me that there are those ignorant (Buddhist definition meaning blinded by ideology or misinformed) enough to claim that there are such things as negative and positive rights. Whats next? I suppose there are first second and thrid generation rights as well? You are not speaking of rights or law in any way...you are speaking in purely ideological terms...phrase it that way...or else let those who are actually authorities on the matter explain to you how things actually work outside of the ideological bubble.
Keith Halderman - 8/5/2005
On his radio program O'Reilly began his segment on the subway searches by responding to a caller and more or less admitting that the exercise was symbloic and unlikey to prevent any attacks. Very soon afterwards he argued that the ACLU lawsuit was endangering lives. How?
David Timothy Beito - 8/5/2005
I understand why you did this. I was once a member. I suspect, however, that, like me, you will eventually drop out in disgust.
- The Memorial Where Slavery Is Real
- Thomas Piketty accuses Germany of forgetting history as it lectures Greece
- Greek ‘No’ May Have Its Roots in Heroic Myths and Real Resistance
- 150 years later, schools are still a battlefield for interpreting Civil War
- Where are America's memorials to pain of slavery, black resistance?
- Historian: "I don’t want my students to simply choose sides in a polemic between heritage and hate"
- Harvard’s Nancy Cott says the conservatives in the gay marriage case have a stilted idea of the history of marriage
- Did a historian who said he’s a victim of McCarthyism get the story wrong?
- Stephanie Coontz’s work on the history of marriage cited by the Supreme Court.
- How Does It Feel To Have One’s Work as a Historian Cited by the Supreme Court? Cool. Very Cool. Thank You Very Much.