- Shopping Bag ( 0 items )
Shining a searing spotlight on public figures from President George W. Bush and Senator Hillary Clinton to the Reverends Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton to his former CBS News colleague Dan Rather, The No Spin Zone is laced with the kind of straight-shooting commentary that has made O’Reilly the voice of middle America’s disenfranchised.
The No-Spin Zone cuts through all the rhetoric that some of O'Reilly's most infamous guests have spewed to expose what's really on their minds, while sharing plenty of his own emphatic counterpoints along the way.
“[O’Reilly’s] brand of hard-nosed, regular-guy TV talk is here to stay.” –Newsweek
“[The No Spin Zone] vibrates with O’Reilly’s gruff Irish wit and elbows-on-the-bar social criticism.” –Atlanta Journal-Constitution
"You Kidding Me?"
Issue 1: Sexual deviants who prey on children
The Opponent: Floyd Abrams, First Amendment attorney
O'Reilly: This doesn't have anything to do with free speech.
Abrams: But of course it does.
O'Reilly: No, this has to do with aiding and abetting, promoting a crime on a website.
If you are thirty-five or older, chances are good that your childhood in America was pretty much like mine, no matter where you grew up. By age six I was out of the house most of the time after school and all during the summer, playing with my tight group of friends. There were limits. For example, if I was late for dinner at six o'clock, there was hell to pay.
Otherwise I was on my own in the great outdoors. My parents seemingly had no fear that I would be harmed by sinister outside forces marauding around my Long Island neighborhood. Sure, I might hurt myself roughhousing, but hey, those were the breaks. My father didn't sound like football announcer John Madden, but he had Madden's mind-set: "Play rough--take your chances."
With my dopey friends, whom you might have met in my last book, The O'Reilly Factor, I made the most of the deep woods three blocks from my house. We climbed thirty feet up into the thick leafy branches to build rickety tree houses. We tunneled underground like moles. We threw rocks at each other. We rolled around in the dirt completely unsupervised by annoying adults.
It never occurred to us that some older guy in an overcoat might drive up and try to hurt us. Yes, my father once said something about never taking a ride with a stranger. But he didn't say why, didn't make an issue out of it, and didn't seem concerned that his eldest son might be taken hostage at some point.
How times have changed. And that's the terrifying subject of this chapter's debate with a distinguished First Amendment lawyer and public figure, who I believe is absolutely wrong in putting the rights of special (read perverted) interests ahead of the safety of American children.
Parents today are rightfully worried about their children being abducted or abused, even in their own neighborhoods. But why is that? Are there more child molesters in the United States now than in my childhood years in the fifties and sixties? Are they bolder for some reason? Is it possible they are being encouraged?
Statistically, it is impossible to know. Officials at the FBI and the Department of Health and Human Services say they do not have accurate statistics for child abuse and abduction before 1990. According to the federal government, more than 100,000 American kids were sexually molested in 1998, or one and a half children per one thousand. In 1999 nearly 32,000 kids were kidnapped--most by relatives. England does a better job of tracking the danger-to-kids trend. Scotland Yard says the number of convictions for gross indecency with a child doubled between 1985 and 1995. So the data suggest that society has become more menacing to children and that more adults are willing to risk imprisonment and social destruction to molest kids. The question is why?
Some believe that widespread, often-hysterical TV coverage has possibly encouraged deviant behavior toward children. Because of television news, crimes against children have been magnified greatly. The heartbreak of any child damaged by an adult is spread from coast to coast immediately and the experts start prattling, some of them sympathetic to the "disease" or "condition" of the victimizer. No one can say for sure, but the notoriety of the crimes may attract pedophiles who are risk takers. We are obviously not talking about rational people here.
But there is also something else in play in this country that is much subtler: the gradual contagion of nonjudgmental acceptance. The result of this contagion is that behavior that would have been roundly condemned forty years ago is now "understood" or in some cases even accepted.
Two college-student parents killed their newborn baby and left his body in a trash can outside a cheap motel. The pair received hundreds of calls of sympathy and support. After all, it was "understandable" that they panicked. In the end, a judge sentenced them to less than three years in prison.
In Wisconsin an expectant mother tried to poison her fetus with alcohol one day before the due date. She received no jail time, as supporters petitioned the press and the court with tales about her life of woe.
Throughout the country drug-addicted babies are routinely returned to the mothers who have already damaged them physically and perhaps limited their learning potential for life. But remember: The mother has a disease. Can society deprive the mother of raising her own children? Well, I damn well would. But I seem to be in the minority these days, as my "understanding" threshold does not reflect the society in which we live. In all the examples I've cited, the child's life is devalued in favor of the adult's "situation." How did this happen in America?
Here's my answer, which is the lead-in to our first encounter in the No Spin Zone: The welfare of a child means less today because of the promotion and acceptance of certain so-called special interests. The most notorious example--and I am not making this up--is an organization based in the United States called the North American Man-Boy Love Association. It advocates the legalization of sex between men and boys as young as eight years old. Read that sentence again and digest the eight-years-old part. This vile NAMBLA group was formed in 1978 and calls for the "empowerment" of youth in the sexual area. It says it does not engage in any activities that violate the law.
Oh yeah? What about the fact that NAMBLA was involved in funding an orphanage in Thailand that allowed grown men to rape and molest the children who lived there? And what about the case of child rape in Ohio where NAMBLA was found guilty of complicity in the crime? The Ohio Court of Appeals ruled that NAMBLA's literature, found in the possession of the rapist, showed "preparation and purpose" in encouraging the rape.
It gets much, much worse. A NAMBLA member recently raped and murdered a young boy in Massachusetts. In October 1997 ten-year-old Jeffrey Curley was playing near his home in Cambridge when two men tried to lure him into a car. When he resisted, Salvatore Sicari and Charles Jaynes got brutal. They wound up killing the boy and then drove to Maine, where they dumped the boy's body in a river.
Both men were eventually arrested, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment. Prosecutors at the trial produced as critical evidence a diary kept by Jaynes. In it he flat out stated that he became obsessed with having sex with young boys after he joined NAMBLA. How did the organization allegedly poison him with its ideas? According to the diary, Jaynes received NAMBLA literature in the mail and visited the group's website on computers at the Boston Public Library. Clearly, these NAMBLA people wanted to get their message out. According to lawyers familiar with the website, it actually posted techniques designed to lure boys into having sex with men and also supplied information on what an adult should do if caught.
Jeffrey Curley's parents are suing NAMBLA in federal court for $200 million. And guess who is defending NAMBLA in the case? Can you spell ACLU? That's right. The most powerful free speech watchdog in the world is using its money and resources to make sure that NAMBLA is not driven out of business. Is this an outrage or what?
The amazing truth is that the American Civil Liberties Union is spending membership dues defending the lawsuit. In a statement it said, "Regardless of whether people agree with or abhor NAMBLA's views, holding the organization responsible for crimes committed by others who read their materials would gravely endanger our important First Amendment rights."
Baloney! I respect the ACLU's goal of protecting the rights of all Americans. At their best, this group is courageous in defending legitimate expressions of opinion, some of which, like the Nazi marches, are pretty vile. But NAMBLA is a different matter because the freedom to harm children is not built into our Constitution.
Attorney Floyd Abrams walked onto The O'Reilly Factor set confident and clear-eyed. He had won many of these debates in the past. In my introduction to the segment, I told the audience that I believed NAMBLA was guilty of promoting statutory rape and was a seditious organization in the sense that it wanted to undercut the moral foundation of the United States. Abrams opened his remarks by saying that "the ACLU serves the public by serving even an awful bunch of creeps." Then we got down to the heart of the matter and things got heated.
O'Reilly: This doesn't have anything to do with free speech.
Abrams: But of course it does.
O'Reilly: No, this has to do with aiding and abetting, promoting a crime on a website.
Abrams: If that's what they do, then the family will win the case. But until they show that, there should be somebody brave enough--and the ACLU is--to show up.
O'Reilly: I think you're dead wrong because what the ACLU is doing is allowing an organization to corrupt children. In doing so the ACLU becomes part of the crime if it wins and allows NAMBLA to get away with it.
Abrams: So they shouldn't have a lawyer, right?
O'Reilly: They shouldn't have the ACLU.
Abrams: Throw them in jail.
O'Reilly: I'd put them in jail in a heartbeat.
Abrams: I know you would.
O'Reilly: Each lawyer has a responsibility to choose the case that promotes justice.
Abrams: These people need the ACLU.
Sure they need it, because they are a criminal enterprise that exists for only one reason: to encourage statutory rape. The ACLU's representation is free, and NAMBLA is staying alive because of it. When the ACLU chooses which cases to take, it has a responsibility to the people who are paying dues to it. The thing is, no decent human being should be helping NAMBLA, and I know many ACLU members who are absolutely mortified that this organization has stained itself with this case.
It should be obvious that I am a big free speech supporter. The Factor would have been shut down a long time ago if the First Amendment wasn't sacred. But we need a clear-thinking ACLU to protect our freedom of expression, not some radical organization that is lost in a fog of self-righteousness. I asked ACLU President Nadine Strossen to address this NAMBLA issue, but she declined. That was interesting. Ms. Strossen has talked with me before and is anything but camera shy.
And what about the authorities? Why isn't the Justice Department prosecuting NAMBLA? If the Ohio court nailed them, what's wrong with the feds? The answer to that one is that the feds don't care. We have become a nation held hostage to self-serving rationalizations of special interest groups. The Zone is sickened by the cowardice of the Justice Department as well as by the ACLU's irresponsibility. Using the First Amendment as a cover for the subversion of our laws violates the public safety. Spinning the NAMBLA-ACLU deal as a "rights" issue is a disgrace.
"One thing [NAMBLA] didn't say was go out and kill anybody," Abrams said to me. "One thing it didn't say was go out and rape anybody."
But as any good citizen knows, it's not what you don't say that counts, it's what you do say. If the ACLU cannot acknowledge that it is a crime to conspire to have sex with children--a hurtful and brutal act physically, emotionally, and morally--then the American Civil Liberties Union does not deserve our respect or our support.
Reading, Writing, and the Joy of Sex
Issue 2: Sex ed in your child's classroom
The Opponent: Dr. Joycelyn Elders, former surgeon general of the United States
O'Reilly: But you know how kids are. As soon as masturbation is brought up, they'll run out and tell their friends . . .
Elders: Poor children whom nobody has ever taught anything--are we to just throw them away? I think not.
It's not just the shameless perverts we need to worry about. Our children can also be assaulted by well-meaning public officials, teachers, and other adults in responsible positions. And these intrusions on the young are far more powerful than the lurid crimes that grab headlines because they are often very personal and delivered to the child one-on-one by influential adults.
Take the supposedly enlightened movement toward sex education. Right now, in many of the nation's public schools, there are sex education classes that get right to the heart of the matter. You get the what, you get the how. You get the birth control. You sometimes get nonverbal approval and, in rare cases, outright encouragement to engage in sexual activity. Driver's ed leads to driving a car, right? Sex ed has to be handled with the proper touch (pardon the pun) or, well, you get the idea.
I taught high school in Opa-locka, Florida, considered at the time to be one of the worst slums in South Florida. The kids at my school knew all about sex, drugs, and rock and roll. They needed guidance, not instruction. They needed emotional maturity and perspective. They listened very, very closely to everything an adult said about sex and especially the way it was said.
Sex ed for me was "the talk" my father gave me when I turned thirteen. It was awkward for both of us, as the Irish aren't exactly known for their Dr. Ruth-like candor in these matters. "The talk" was also somewhat unnecessary. I already knew the basics from seminars with my friends, using Playboy magazines as text. And my father's words were highly theoretical because the reality was, I had about as much chance of landing the great white whale as I did of having sex. Teenage girls want to date smooth guys. I was a barbarian. But I gave my father points for trying.
As a young teacher I was more relaxed speaking about sex than my father ever was, but I was careful. Students have a way of misquoting any provocative comments, and that can lead to big trouble in a Catholic high school. Some of my students as young as fifteen were having sex and almost everyone in the school knew about it. I encouraged the use of contraceptives for any American who did not want to become a parent. I spoke of this in a general sense, illuminating the lesson with specifics about poverty, divorce, and child deprivation. Most of the kids got the message. Some didn't. It is always that way.
Predictably, the school administration did not like my kind of direct approach. They were determined to control the sexuality of the students by threatening them with various punishments for risque behavior. This of course was insane. The more you just say no, the more enticing certain kinds of behavior become. The issue came to a boil over football, of all things.
From the Hardcover edition.
|1.||The Class factor||4|
|2.||The Money factor||14|
|3.||The Sex factor||26|
|4.||The Media factor||38|
|5.||The Drug and Alcohol factor||54|
|6.||The Job factor||68|
|7.||The Parents factor||85|
|8.||The Dating factor||97|
|9.||The Spouse factor||108|
|10.||The Child factor||114|
|11.||The Celebrity factor||132|
|12.||The Politics factor||141|
|13.||The Race factor||155|
|14.||The Religion factor||163|
|15.||The Success factor||169|
|16.||The Friendship factor||174|
|17.||The Ridiculous factor||180|
|18.||The Bad factor||192|
|19.||The Good factor||201|
|20.||The Gratitude factor||213|
Posted November 8, 2010
"Caution! You are about to enter the No Spin Zone." Over the years, influential journalists have begun or ended their broadcasts with a signature. It could be anything from Edward Morrow's farewell wish of "Good Night, and Good Luck" to Bill O'Reilly's warning, when he looks straight into the camera, as if he, himself, could see each and every one of his viewers and says, "Caution! You are about to enter the No Spin Zone." The Emmy winning Fox News analyst, explains in his second of eight novels,The Zone is a place where spinners are not welcome. "It's a nightmare for charlatans and deceivers," a place where liars, cheaters, stealers, and fakes are exposed and only the honest man remains to get his beliefs across to the American public. On his TV show The O'Reilly Factor, the No Spin Zone is a place where free debate is welcome and both sides to every issue are shown. O'Reilly is a fierce debater and loyal to his beliefs, but he is respectful as long as what his opponent says is not said in a manner of deceit. In his book O'Reilly discusses over a dozen different issues facing America today. From the death penalty and sexual education to censorship in journalism and taxes O'reilly has "confrontations with the powerful and famous in America." His views do not reflect the beliefs of a sole party, corporation, or organization; they are soley his In this fair, but blunt novel on the common man's view of America, both sides to every issue are represented, O'Reilly's most common saying being, "you decide." The No Spin Zone is an educating, fun, easy read on what O'Reilly feels are our country's most pressing problems. The book is for both independent voters and republicans alike, O'Reilly supporting issues from both sides and, through interviews, allowing his opponent to share the opposing side leaving democrats and liberals represented but often contradicted. The big issues facing America today do not all have to do with politics and scandals. In fact nearly half the issues in this novel have to do with issues concerning families and children. O'Reilly discusses the impact drug abusing celebrities have on today's children, and how music that contains drugs, sex, alcohol, disrespect and hate is tainting the views of the young listeners. He debates on the influence the television media has over the youth as well as the war on drugs and substance abusers. He speaks up for working mothers and discusses the worries parents have, "about their children being abducted or abused," O'Reilly also discusses "spinners" in a few of his chapters. He shares his disgust of Bill Clinton over his in-office affair as well as the fact that he lied on national television and his wife Hilary who throughout her election, "refused to participate in any of the tough interviews." He discusses Jesse Jackson, the charity founder whose funds are being misreported and who has only given slivers of his fundraised money to the proposed cause of education. He opposed Al Sharpton who frequently felt the need to boycott and protests over race issues such as the amount of African Americans Burger King employs. These people would be classified under both "powerful and famous" and "charlatans and deceivers", the combination O'Reilly is the most disgusted with. Although the book was not solely about hot political issues, O'Reilly did include two heWas this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted June 17, 2007
The fairest solution to this over publicizeded debate. But since it is based on common sense it has no chance to be seen by the Congress. I suggest you put it in the form of a petition, downloadable off your web site, with a printable list of people to send it to.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted August 14, 2004
Bill O¿Reilly lets people enter the No Spin Zone and discuss their side of an issue. If they have a valid point Mr. O¿Reilly may offer some suggestions or simply agree with the opinion. If the person in the Zone offers a line of B.S. Mr. O¿Reilly will respectfully disagree and give the facts for the reader to make the correct decision.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted February 6, 2004
Mr. O'Reilly's book was indeed a slow read, I also feel that it portrays the angray bitter out of touch side of the American conservative, also since he has never served in the military some of his words ring a little hollow on my ears.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted January 4, 2004
Sometimes I agree with O'Reilly and sometimes I disagree with him. The same is true with the topics in 'The No Spin Zone'. He outlines his position and forces guests to give a straight answer. Probably one of the weakest qualities of today's society is the inability [or unwillingness] to give a straight answer because someone may not like us. There will be reviewers who spew venom because they are pre-disposed to doing so, but if you SAY you have an open mind, then you will be challenged, as Bill's guests are, to answer the question at hand.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted October 26, 2003
this book really is not worth the money, much less the paper. O'reilly has a way of speculating and telling his spin the way he percieves it. He shows NO ACTUAL FACTS, other than the fact that he loves to talk about himself.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted September 2, 2003
What O'Reilly does for us, is to shine the light of truth on our lives and sometimes, a few of us would rather be left in the dark. Wait, maybe more than a few would like the lights left off. No one becomes a hero for telling truth, in fact most are hung for their trouble. Watch your backside Bill and good luck. Also, buy and read ( nightly ) Keshner's COCKPIT CONFESSIONS OF AN AIRLINE PILOT, which is far more than the title suggests... this guy is a combo of Hemingway and Faulkner.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted June 8, 2003
Great Book! I enjoyed his last book (The O'Reilly Factor) and I actually enjoyed this one just as much. He tackles some big names in Hollywood and in Washington and he holds nothing back. I give him credit for the courage he has. I enjoy hearing his arguments.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted June 5, 2003
After reading O'Reilly's first non fiction book, I can't imagine a better follow up. His views on everything under the sun were addressed in his first book, The O'Reilly Factor. The No Spin zone singles out those he feels are some of the biggest culprits in the political world today. He takes no sides with anyone but himself and even singles out Presdent Bush concerning his views on capital punishment. As with his other book, he backs up everything with statistics and makes things interesting by including excerpts of interviews from his television shows in the past. This is a great read and I anticipate his next book will be just as good.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted April 21, 2003
It is one of the few and the greatest nonfiction books that I have read in a long time. Though it didn't keep me up at night turning pages. I watch the No Spin Zone somewhat avidly, and respect his no nonesense attitude. I like how he said that he doesn't care if the person disagrees with him or not, but if he can have the guts and the intelligence to support what he says. (Alec Baldwin anyone...)Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted April 10, 2003
Whether you are a Bill O'reilly fan or not, there is no denying that only truths are in this book. Every bit of information is indeed able to be backed up, you just have to take the time to find the truth. Mr O'reilly has done it again and I can't wait for his next book.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted April 7, 2003
Bill O'Reilly is a no-holds-bar kind of guy and thats what you get from this book. Exceprts from his interviews with the powerful and corrupt of America along with his commentary about the issues. If your sick of hearing liberal whines and cries, this is your kind of book.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted August 31, 2002
This book, like O'Reilly's TV program, is nothing more than a bunch of simplistic, paper-thin unsubstantiated assertions, supposed quick-fix solutions to complex issues, holier-than-thou finger-pointing and typical right-wing prejudice disguised as fact-of-the-matter reasoning. O'Reilly does a good job of selling his little "I have no political bias and I deal with just the facts and how things are" approach, but people who aren't naive enough to go for the no-spin marketing gimmick see he's a conservative in moderate's clothing and what calls he calls "dealing with the facts" is just opinionated, and often extremely personal biased political spin. For example, he basically called for a crusade against the big, bad evil monster Bill Clinton for the Mark Rich pardon, yet he only casually makes a passing negative reference to Dick Cheney and his secret Enron dealings. O'Reilly's a guy who loves to call for investigations of various people and organizations such as the Catholic Church, the Red Cross, and Gary Condit. If Clinton had secret dealings with a billion $ corporation that lied on its records, collapsed and left thousands of people screwed, you KNOW O'Reilly would call for his head, yet Dick Cheney gets a one sentence light scolding. There's a million other examples of O-Reilly's "spin," take your pick. Unless you're naive, sheepish, and like to be told what to think, save your $Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted July 25, 2002
I used to read all the time. In the past few years I've picked up a book only to start it and put it down - never to be picked up again. This is the FIRST book I've read from front to back in over 5 years. The chapters are SHORT and to the POINT. I busted out laughing a few times too at O'Reilly's wit. I was also very much saddened and disgusted by people who are suppose to be our 'so-called' leaders. I recommend it highly. It's an eye-opener and a quick read for those of you with little patience like me!Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted January 30, 2002
This book was as good if not better than 'The good the bad....' I asked for it on Christmas just as I had with the previous. I read both twice and still refer to them.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted January 31, 2002
Do you watch O'Reilly's show? If you do so with any regularity, YOU'VE ALREADY READ THE BOOK!! Absolutely nothing new here. Plus it's short. It would be better priced at $15 than $25. Save your money.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted February 5, 2002
Posted November 29, 2001
I enjoyed the 'O'Reilly Factor' book but this one is a major letdown. In reading it, i got the impression O'Reilly is overextended and pumping out material while the going is good. O'Reilly seems to be losing some of the aggressive individualism he had a few years back.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted December 8, 2001
Excellent book! Bill tells it like it is and the way it should be... I wish we had more Bill O'Reilly's in the world. A great book for the college student as they prepare for their future into the world.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.
Posted November 28, 2001
What O'Reilly does for us, is to shine the light of truth on our lives and sometimes, a few of us would rather be left in the dark. Wait, maybe more than a few would like the lights left off. No one becomes a hero for telling truth, in fact most are hung for their trouble. Watch your backside Bill and good luck.Was this review helpful? Yes NoThank you for your feedback. Report this reviewThank you, this review has been flagged.