|
|
| May 15, 2008 |
| Viewer Mail for Wednesday, May 14 |
Here's a sample of some of our favorite emails that didn't make it to air last night.
HILLARY'S SECRET STRATEGY?
"Is it possible for Hillary Clinton to run as an independent in November if she were to lose the Democratic nomination?"
Don Chauvin
Abbeville, LA
"Bill, why should Hillary Clinton drop out of the race? Would people be talking this way if a man was in the same position?"
Dephny Zerilli
Austin, TX
"Hillary is so desperate to win she is willing to cheat and destroy the Democratic party to do so. She is selfish."
Cris Sears
Saginaw, MI
"Bill, maybe Hillary is staying in the race to repay herself for her loans. If she quits, so do campaign contributors."
Ron LaVergne
Deerfield Beach, FL
"Hi Bill, I'm an independent who has typically voted Republican my entire adult life. This year, I cast my vote for Senator Obama. I continue to be amazed by the blatant narcissism of Senator Clinton in her bid for the White House."
Pat Graham
Newfields, NH
"How come when a state with a predominantly white base like West Virginia overwhelmingly votes for a white candidate, it is called racism? But when a state with a predominantly black base like North Carolina overwhelmingly votes for a black candidate, it is called momentum?"
Andy Metz
Raleigh, NC
"Mr. O'Reilly, one way to leave race out of the election is to stop breaking down vote percentages by race. After all, the only important thing is who wins."
Mike Kay
Gonzales, LA
"It's no wonder Obama is getting the college kids' votes. Universities have 85% left-wing professors."
Myron Pearce
Rozet, WY
"Your analysis is wrong. Clinton still has two huge opportunities. They're called Michigan and Florida."
Bryan Delgado
Dallas, TX
"Hillary is like Rocky. She will not quit. For that, I applaud her courage against all odds."
Eva Bedell
Bellerose, NY
"Hillary Clinton represents the white establishment that Michelle Obama hates."
Michael Von Wert
Tupelo, MS
"Bill, I think Hillary is staying in the race so she can run in 2012 on a 'told you so' platform."
Jim Tinguely
Pennsylvania
"Hillary won't be on the ticket as VP. She will help Obama lose so she can run in 2012."
Jim Remington
La Habra Heights, CA
"If I were President Obama, I wouldn't Hillary as my Vice President. I would be afraid she'd sabotage me and my office."
Liz Carter
Atlanta, GA
"Hillary thought she was co-president with Bill. Why would Obama want a VP who would never be satisfied with that role?"
Marie Hunt
Rochester, NY
IN DEFENSE OF REV. WRIGHT
"Marion Barry suggests that as an independent, you wouldn't vote for Barack Obama. How does that make him the great uniter?"
Ed Kocialski
Azle, TX
"I think Mayor Barry was accusing you of racism when he said you could talk to Sen. Obama for 40 hours and still wouldn't vote for him."
John Williams
Huntsville, AL
"My dad always told me you can judge a man by the company he keeps. Obama has had too many nefarious associates for me to ever vote for him."
Joe Hudson
Carthage, TX
"Barack Obama hasn't won much since the news broke about Rev. Wright and William Ayers. This will hurt him in the general election."
Deborah Ayers
Dixon, CA
"If the public had been told about Rev. Wright sooner, the election would have been affected much more than it was. Too much too late."
Helen Barnett
Bedford, IN
"Bill, if you're worried about Rev. Wright's giant house and fancy cars, you might want to compare them to the limos, palaces and Pope mobiles of the Catholic church."
Dr. Terrence Lauerman
De Pere, WI
"For Marion Barry to accuse you of McCarthyism for reporting on Rev. Wright was a dishonest attempt to silence and discredit you."
Rick Provost
Richmond, VA
SUNKEN TREASURE
"Bill, to my knowledge Spain has no claims on the ship or its contents anymore. It was a sunken and abandoned ship. The rules of salvage apply."
Donald Laster Jr.
West Long Branch, NJ
"Hey Bill, Spain stole the gold in the first place. They can have their ship back, but the gold should go to the country it was stolen from."
Vince Smith
Woodbury, NJ
TAMPA SCHOOL SEX SCANDAL
"More than 20 years ago, my wife had an affair with one of her male students and the school district merely asked her to resign. My ex-wife is still teaching to this day."
Brian (last name withheld)
Yucca Valley, CA
"Sir, both of my parents were teachers -- good teachers. It's a crying shame that some bad teachers are now dragging down the reputation of all teachers."
James Klein
Midwest City, OK
"Children in any and every school in America are at risk of sexual abuse from teachers, coaches and administrators and have been for many years. Why doesn't the media report this story more often?"
Jim Burns
Minneapolis, MN
"The school should be raided just like that polygamy compound in Texas. All the students at this school are at risk too!"
Jaynee Germond
Roseburg, OR
"Wake up, O'Reilly. The teacher sex scandals are on the heels of female liberation."
Michael Kinzig
Los Angeles, CA
MISCELLANEOUS
"When will Culture Quiz include some questions about America's great poets, artists, novelists? Most of the questions are about bad movies."
David Churchman
Ashland, OR
"Culture Quiz FYI -- the phrase 'that is very perspicacious of you' was from one of my favorite Twilight Zone episodes."
Duane Fish
Chicago, IL
"My wife gets very irritable and hard to live with on your nights off from the Factor."
David Capps
Jacksonville, TX |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 11:08 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| May 14, 2008 |
| Mexico: On the Road to a Failed State? |
Edgar Millan Gomez was shot dead in his own home in Mexico City on May 8. Millan Gomez was the highest-ranking law enforcement officer in Mexico, responsible for overseeing most of Mexico's counternarcotics efforts. He orchestrated the January arrest of one of the leaders of the Sinaloa cartel, Alfredo Beltran Leyva. (Several Sinaloa members have been arrested in Mexico City since the beginning of the year.) The week before, Roberto Velasco Bravo died when he was shot in the head at close range by two armed men near his home in Mexico City. He was the director of organized criminal investigations in a tactical analysis unit of the federal police. The Mexican government believes the Sinaloa drug cartel ordered the assassinations of Velasco Bravo and Millan Gomez. Combined with the assassination of other federal police officials in Mexico City, we now see a pattern of intensifying warfare in Mexico City.
The fighting also extended to the killing of the son of the Sinaloa cartel leader, Joaquin "El Chapo" Guzman Loera, who was killed outside a shopping center in Culiacan, the capital of Sinaloa state. Also killed was the son of reputed top Sinaloa money launderer Blanca Margarita Cazares Salazar in an attack carried out by 40 gunmen. According to sources, Los Zetas, the enforcement arm of the rival Gulf cartel, carried out the attack. Reports also indicate a split between Sinaloa and a resurgent Juarez cartel, which also could have been behind the Millan Gomez killing.
Spiraling Violence
Violence along the U.S.-Mexican border has been intensifying for several years, and there have been attacks in Mexico City. But last week was noteworthy not so much for the body count, but for the type of people being killed. Very senior government police officials in Mexico City were killed along with senior Sinaloa cartel operatives in Sinaloa state. In other words, the killings are extending from low-level operatives to higher-ranking ones, and the attacks are reaching into enemy territory, so to speak. Mexican government officials are being killed in Mexico City, Sinaloan operatives in Sinaloa. The conflict is becoming more intense and placing senior officials at risk.
The killings pose a strategic problem for the Mexican government. The bulk of its effective troops are deployed along the U.S. border, attempting to suppress violence and smuggling among the grunts along the border, as well as the well-known smuggling routes elsewhere in the country. The attacks in Mexico raise the question of whether forces should be shifted from these assignments to Mexico City to protect officials and break up the infrastructure of the Sinaloa and other cartels there. The government also faces the secondary task of suppressing violence between cartels. The Sinaloa cartel struck in Mexico City not only to kill troublesome officials and intimidate others, but also to pose a problem for the Mexican government by increasing areas requiring forces, thereby requiring the government to consider splitting its forces—thus reducing the government presence along the border. It was a strategically smart move by Sinaloa, but no one has accused the cartels of being stupid.
Mexico now faces a classic problem. Multiple, well-armed organized groups have emerged. They are fighting among themselves while simultaneously fighting the government. The groups are fueled by vast amounts of money earned via drug smuggling to the United States. The amount of money involved—estimated at some $40 billion a year—is sufficient to increase tension between these criminal groups and give them the resources to conduct wars against each other. It also provides them with resources to bribe and intimidate government officials. The resources they deploy in some ways are superior to the resources the government employs.
Given the amount of money they have, the organized criminal groups can be very effective in bribing government officials at all levels, from squad leaders patrolling the border to high-ranking state and federal officials. Given the resources they have, they can reach out and kill government officials at all levels as well. Government officials are human; and faced with the carrot of bribes and the stick of death, even the most incorruptible is going to be cautious in executing operations against the cartels.
Toward a Failed State?
There comes a moment when the imbalance in resources reverses the relationship between government and cartels. Government officials, seeing the futility of resistance, effectively become tools of the cartels. Since there are multiple cartels, the area of competition ceases to be solely the border towns, shifting to the corridors of power in Mexico City. Government officials begin giving their primary loyalty not to the government but to one of the cartels. The government thus becomes both an arena for competition among the cartels and an instrument used by one cartel against another. That is the prescription for what is called a "failed state"—a state that no longer can function as a state. Lebanon in the 1980s is one such example.
There are examples in American history as well. Chicago in the 1920s was overwhelmed by a similar process. Smuggling alcohol created huge pools of money on the U.S. side of the border, controlled by criminals both by definition (bootlegging was illegal) and by inclination (people who engage in one sort of illegality are prepared to be criminals, more broadly understood). The smuggling laws gave these criminals huge amounts of power, which they used to intimidate and effectively absorb the city government. Facing a choice between being killed or being enriched, city officials chose the latter. City government shifted from controlling the criminals to being an arm of criminal power. In the meantime, various criminal gangs competed with each other for power.
Chicago had a failed city government. The resources available to the Chicago gangs were limited, however, and it was not possible for them to carry out the same function in Washington. Ultimately, Washington deployed resources in Chicago and destroyed one of the main gangs. But if Al Capone had been able to carry out the same operation in Washington as he did in Chicago, the United States could have become a failed state.
It is important to point out that we are not speaking here of corruption, which exists in all governments everywhere. Instead, we are talking about a systematic breakdown of the state, in which government is not simply influenced by criminals, but becomes an instrument of criminals—either simply an arena for battling among groups or under the control of a particular group. The state no longer can carry out its primary function of imposing peace, and it becomes helpless, or itself a direct perpetrator of crime. Corruption has been seen in Washington—some triggered by organized crime, but never state failure.
The Mexican state has not yet failed. If the activities of the last week have become a pattern, however, we must begin thinking about the potential for state failure. The killing of Millan Gomez transmitted a critical message: No one is safe, no matter how high his rank or how well protected, if he works against cartel interests. The killing of El Chapo's son transmitted the message that no one in the leading cartel is safe from competing gangs, no matter how high his rank or how well protected.
The killing of senior state police officials causes other officials to recalculate their attitudes. The state is no longer seen as a competent protector, and being a state official is seen as a liability—potentially a fatal liability—unless protection is sought from a cartel, a protection that can be very lucrative indeed for the protector. The killing of senior cartel members intensifies conflict among cartels, making it even more difficult for the government to control the situation and intensifying the movement toward failure.
It is important to remember that Mexico has a tradition of failed governments, particularly in the 19th and early 20th century. In those periods, Mexico City became an arena for struggle among army officers and regional groups straddling the line between criminal and political. The Mexican army became an instrument in this struggle and its control a prize. The one thing missing was the vast amounts of money at stake. So there is a tradition of state failure in Mexico, and there are higher stakes today than before.
The Drug Trade's High Stakes
To benchmark the amount at stake, assume that the total amount of drug trafficking is $40 billion, a frequently used figure, but hardly an exact one by any means. In 2007, Mexico exported about $210 billion worth of goods to the United States and imported about $136 billion from the United States. If the drug trade is $40 billion dollars, it represents about 25 percent of all exports to the United States. That in itself is huge, but what makes it more important is that while the $210 billion is divided among many businesses and individuals, the $40 billion is concentrated in the hands of a few, fairly tightly controlled cartels. Sinaloa and Gulf, currently the strongest, have vast resources at their disposal; a substantial part of the economy can be controlled through this money. This creates tremendous instability as other cartels vie for the top spot, with the state lacking the resources to control the situation and having its officials seduced and intimidated by the cartels.
We have seen failed states elsewhere. Colombia in the 1980s failed over the same issue—drug money. Lebanon failed in the 1970s and 1980s. The Democratic Republic of the Congo was a failed state.
Mexico's potential failure is important for three reasons. First, Mexico is a huge country, with a population of more than 100 million. Second, it has a large economy—the 14th-largest in the world. And third, it shares an extended border with the world's only global power, one that has assumed for most of the 20th century that its domination of North America and control of its borders is a foregone conclusion. If Mexico fails, there are serious geopolitical repercussions. This is not simply a criminal matter.
The amount of money accumulated in Mexico derives from smuggling operations in the United States. Drugs go one way, money another. But all the money doesn't have to return to Mexico or to third-party countries. If Mexico fails, the leading cartels will compete in the United States, and that competition will extend to the source of the money as well. We have already seen cartel violence in the border areas of the United States, but this risk is not limited to that. The same process that we see under way in Mexico could extend to the United States; logic dictates that it would.
The current issue is control of the source of drugs and of the supply chain that delivers drugs to retail customers in the United States. The struggle for control of the source and the supply chain also will involve a struggle for control of markets. The process of intimidation of government and police officials, as well as bribing them, can take place in market towns such as Los Angeles or Chicago, as well as production centers or transshipment points.
Cartel Incentives for U.S. Expansion
That means there are economic incentives for the cartels to extend their operations into the United States. With those incentives comes intercartel competition, and with that competition comes pressure on U.S. local, state and, ultimately, federal government and police functions. Were that to happen, the global implications obviously would be stunning. Imagine an extreme case in which the Mexican scenario is acted out in the United States. The effect on the global system economically and politically would be astounding, since U.S. failure would see the world reshaping itself in startling ways.
Failure for the United States is much harder than for Mexico, however. The United States has a gross domestic product of about $14 trillion, while Mexico's economy is about $900 billion. The impact of the cartels' money is vastly greater in Mexico than in the United States, where it would be dwarfed by other pools of money with a powerful interest in maintaining U.S. stability. The idea of a failed American state is therefore far-fetched.
Less far-fetched is the extension of a Mexican failure into the borderlands of the United States. Street-level violence already has crossed the border. But a deeper, more-systemic corruption—particularly on the local level—could easily extend into the United States, along with paramilitary operations between cartels and between the Mexican government and cartels.
U.S. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates recently visited Mexico, and there are potential plans for U.S. aid in support of Mexican government operations. But if the Mexican government became paralyzed and couldn't carry out these operations, the U.S. government would face a stark and unpleasant choice. It could attempt to protect the United States from the violence defensively by sealing off Mexico or controlling the area north of the border more effectively. Or, as it did in the early 20th century, the United States could adopt a forward defense by sending U.S. troops south of the border to fight the battle in Mexico.
There have been suggestions that the border be sealed. But Mexico is the United States' third-largest customer, and the United States is Mexico's largest customer. This was the case well before NAFTA, and has nothing to do with treaties and everything to do with economics and geography. Cutting that trade would have catastrophic effects on both sides of the border, and would guarantee the failure of the Mexican state. It isn't going to happen.
The Impossibility of Sealing the Border
So long as vast quantities of goods flow across the border, the border cannot be sealed. Immigration might be limited by a wall, but the goods that cross the border do so at roads and bridges, and the sheer amount of goods crossing the border makes careful inspection impossible. The drugs will come across the border embedded in this trade as well as by other routes. So will gunmen from the cartel and anything else needed to take control of Los Angeles' drug market.
A purely passive defense won't work unless the economic cost of blockade is absorbed. The choices are a defensive posture to deal with the battle on American soil if it spills over, or an offensive posture to suppress the battle on the other side of the border. Bearing in mind that Mexico is not a small country and that counterinsurgency is not the United States' strong suit, the latter is a dangerous game. But the first option isn't likely to work either.
One way to deal with the problem would be ending the artificial price of drugs by legalizing them. This would rapidly lower the price of drugs and vastly reduce the money to be made in smuggling them. Nothing hurt the American cartels more than the repeal of Prohibition, and nothing helped them more than Prohibition itself. Nevertheless, from an objective point of view, drug legalization isn't going to happen. There is no visible political coalition of substantial size advocating this solution. Therefore, U.S. drug policy will continue to raise the price of drugs artificially, effective interdiction will be impossible, and the Mexican cartels will prosper and make war on each other and on the Mexican state.
We are not yet at the worst-case scenario, and we may never get there. Mexican President Felipe Calderon, perhaps with assistance from the United States, may devise a strategy to immunize his government from intimidation and corruption and take the war home to the cartels. This is a serious possibility that should not be ruled out. Nevertheless, the events of last week raise the serious possibility of a failed state in Mexico. That should not be taken lightly, as it could change far more than Mexico.
Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.
Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers. |
| Posted by George Friedman, Stratfor.com at 11:03 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 14, 2008 |
| Viewer Mail for Tuesday, May 13 |
Here's a sample of some of our favorite emails that didn't make it to air last night.
RACIAL POLITICS
"What you are saying about race makes sense. But it's not a partisan issue -- race-baiting takes place by liberals AND conservatives, and you need to point that out."
Richard Doyle
Clayton, MO
"Black Americans have voted for white candidates in large numbers in all elections. Hillary had the black vote wrapped up until Obama turned out to be a better candidate."
Quincy Jones
Camp Springs, MD
"Bill, you're wrong -- Obama HAS been race-baiting. Softballing him in order to nab an interview may damage your credibility once the election is over."
Marlena Thompson
Falls Church, VA
"I never thought I'd defend Hillary but here goes: she was not being divisive when she says she attracts more white voters, she was quoting a fact. If you have a chip on your shoulder, you can always find the insult you're looking for."
Jack Adams
New Bern, NC
"There is only one race -- the human race."
Jamie Barnes
Great Falls, MT
OBAMA'S RADICAL ASSOCIATIONS
"There is nothing new on the William Ayers-Barack Obama story. I'm not an Obama supporter, but you're reporting innuendo about Ayers & Obama's relationship."
Stefan Dobratz
Olympia, WA
"Mr. O'Reilly, Bill Ayers is a known terrorist. Why is he not in prison?"
Gary Miller
Chattanooga, TN
"Obama's whole career seems built around questionable relationships, yet he wants voters to believe he is above all that these relationships have espoused."
Bob Kartows
Bedford, VA
"Given Barack Obama's close association with William Ayers, I doubt he could be hired for a Defense Department job because he wouldn't be granted security clearance. Yet the Democratic party is set to nominate him to be Commander-In-Chief? The world is turned upside down."
Walt Ivanjack
Columbia, SC
"Why doesn't Jesse Watters pay William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn a visit?"
Kathy Barkulis
Chicago, IL
"Regarding Obama's associations, if you lie down with dogs, you get fleas."
R.J. Miller
Newtown, PA
"If Barack Obama's association with Ayers is just opportunism, and he doesn't share his ideology, then Obama has surely made a pact with the devil."
Herb Hill
Ava, MO
"Mr. O'Reilly, you ask if there is any evidence Obama agrees with the ideology of Ayers & Dohrn. Shouldn't the question be whether there's any evidence he doesn't agree with them?"
Gloria Markus
Doylestown, PA
"I'm getting tired of you saying Obama is not responsible for the things his friends say and do."
Chuck Woolweaver
Boynton Beach, FL
"There is ample evidence that Obama's radical left-wing ideology was first formed and nurtured while he was a teenager in Hawaii."
Steve Morris
Marietta, GA
SCHOOL DANCES -- OUT OF CONTROL!
"Hey Bill, our 18-year-old son was at a dance last week and witnessed many students 'grinding.' No chaperone stopped the dancing because apparently everybody dances that way. As parents, we're appalled."
Mike & Sallie (last name withheld)
North Logan, UT
"I'm a photographer who works high school proms. This explicit dancing goes on all the time and nobody says a word."
Michael Elliott
River Vale, NJ
"Bill, why didn't any of the teachers step in to stop the music? You can't dance without music!"
Lynn Tobin
Palm Coast, FL
"Mr. O'Reilly, I'm a former dean of students at the high school and middle school level. The school dance behavior you showed goes on all over the country. The students gather around to shield their lewd dance moves from the teachers and parents who chaperone. So don't blame them."
Ben Green
Tacoma, WA
"Dear Bill, I too was very disappointed with the lack of discipline by the faculty. But we've handcuffed our teachers with fear of lawsuits from students for infringing on their civil rights."
Roger Burkhalter
Pearland, TX
"Wow Bill, you are out of touch with what's happening in schools today. That dance is pretty typical of what goes on in many, many public schools. The inmates are running the asylum."
Don Perry
Genoa, IL
"I'm with you on this. Where's the accountability? This perfectly illustrates the culture war."
Pete Moceri
Tacoma, WA
"Granted the teachers are responsible for keeping the students' actions in check, but what about the parents? It's pretty difficult to correct what is taught at home."
Eileen Murray
Oroville, CA
"When I went to high school, the vice principal used to carry a ruler to measure the distance between the boys and girls."
Bill Loucks
Mariposa, CA
"On the west coast, we call it 'freaking.' It's basically simulated sex on the dance floor. It's gotten so bad, some schools have done away with all dances except for the winter formal and spring prom."
Craig Holland
Bakersfield, CA
"There's a simple reason this is happening: if the people in charge make a concerted effort to drive God out of our schools, unGodly things are going to take place."
Duke Abernathy
Duncan, OK
MISCELLANEOUS
"Bill, you are the most honest, fair and - might I add - best looking anchor on TV today. You make watching Fox a treat."
Sheilah Anderson
Houston, TX
"Bill, stop arguing with your body language expert and trying to give your own interpretation. She's the expert, not you!"
Robert Anderson
Everett, WA
"Be pithy, but not nugatory!"
Jim Hughes
Cape Coral, FL
"Have you ever thought of writing a Bill O'Reilly dictionary?"
Yale Kincaid
Battle Creek, MI |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 10:48 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 13, 2008 |
| Exclusive: Governor's Award video tribute |
 Our Premium Members can view the video presented at the National Academy of Television Arts and Sciences' awards banquet in Boston where Bill was presented with the prestigious Governor's Award. Narrated by Shepard Smith, it gives a quick overview of Bill's career and identifies his many accomplishments. Congratulations on the award, Bill!
Go: Exclusive Video: Governor's Award tribute |
| Posted by BillOReilly.com Staff at 3:47 PM - Link to this entry
Discuss This Entry
|
|
 |
|
|
| May 13, 2008 |
| Viewer Mail for Monday, May 12 |
Bill can't read all of the mail that he receives on the air each night, so here's a sampling of some of our favorite messages that we were unable to feature on the TV Factor.
ON RACIAL POLITICS
"Marc Lamont Hill says that it is wrong for white voters to see Obama as a black candidate. However, he apparently thinks it's just fine that Obama is getting 90% of the black vote! A bit hypocritical."
Mike Wood
California
"You are too easy on Professor Hill. The guy states 90% of blacks vote for Obama because of racial pride but whites voting for Hillary are racist."
John Rampias
Thousand Oaks, CA
"In my opinion, Hillary was saying uneducated blacks will vote for Obama and educated whites will vote for her. I am an educated white and I promise I will never vote a Clinton back into the White House."
Sue Winchester
Paris, TN
"Please tell Marc Lamont Hill I will not be voting for Barack Obama because of his liberal agenda, NOT because of his race."
Lucinda Miller
Payson, AZ
"The truth is, black people see Barack Obama as the black candidate too. In fact, I would bet there's a large percentage of African-Americans who would and will vote for Obama only on the merits of his blackness."
Cindy Kern
Lake Arrowhead, CA
"I'm afraid that if Obama becomes the next President, any criticism about him by white writers or pundits will be called racism. I'm having serious second thoughts about voting for him."
Dee Burnett
Albany, NY
ON MILEY CYRUS
"The whole episode upsets me. If i had invited this young girl into my home and took advantage of her vulnerabilities and talked her into posing for these photos, I would be in front of a judge on child pornography charges."
John Smith
Memphis, TN
"I feel the photographer Annie Leibovitz has some culpability in this. She should not be taking racy photos of a 15-year-old, no matter how 'tasteful' they are."
P.J. Morgan
Portland, OR
"Billy Ray Cyrus, Miley's father, stated that both parents were present during the Vanity Fair photo shoot. When they left the room, VF staged two quick 'creative' shots and caught Miley off guard. This is deceptive and exploitation of a young, unsupervised child."
Vern Smith
Orlando, FL
"It is so nice to see a Hollywood star like Kirk Cameron with his head on straight. Children are desperate for role models. I wish Kirk and his book all the best."
Adam Gentle
Houston, TX
ON THE MCCAIN INTERVIEW
"Bill, to be pithy and not a gibbering jackdaw: kudos on an excellent, fair, balanced and informative McCain interview."
Syd Albright
Post Falls, ID
"After watching the interview, I can see why conservatives are having trouble with McCain. I will not be voting for him and will sit the election out."
Kenny Rickman
Roxboro, NC
"If you approach Sen. Obama in the same manner, he will melt."
Al Hartman
Burien, WA
"I was supporting and intending to vote for John McCain until I saw and heard his responses to your questions on the Factor. I cannot and will not vote for any person who will not stop illegal immigration, sanctuary cities and unprotected borders."
Bob Norsworthy
Caribou, ME
"John McCain sounds foolish when he talks about waterboarding. America is facing with a barbaric enemy, many of whom have never heard of the Geneva Convention. This issue alone shows John McCain is unfit to lead this country."
Gene Williams
Hamilton, MT
"Mr. O'Reilly, I was really excited to see your interview with John McCain because I wanted to see if you were going to ask him easy questions. But when you criticized him for not wanting to drill for oil, I was so happy! These are the questions that need to be asked."
Mark Munro
Columbus, OH
"Bill, even though I found myself with you on all points during the interview, I felt your attitude was a bit obstreperous."
Douglas Purvis
Acton, ME
"Two nights of interviews with McCain confirm that the Democrats should be thrilled. No matter who wins the election, they will have a willing liberal in office."
Woody Snell
Holtville, AL
"Your interview with McCain was so different than your interview with Hillary. You were all business with McCain, but you were almost playful with Hillary."
James Hill
Sutherlin, OR
"Bill, in your interview with McCain, you repeatedly stopped him in the middle of making a point. Yet you let Hillary run on ad infinitum."
Jim Hopkins
Dunlap, IL
"There were some questions McCain couldn't answer. But compared to Obama, America would be in much more capable hands with John McCain. This isn't the time for an inexperienced president."
Sheila Ballavance
Duluth, MN
"A year ago, I cringed at the thought of Hillary Clinton becoming our next President. But after your two interviews, I now think she could do a pretty good job."
Lynda Frieden
San Jose, CA
"Mr. O, your interviews with John McCain and Hillary Clinton were a lesson in good journalism. Your questions were incisive, honest and politely confrontational. Well done."
Chris Topple
Oshawa, Ontario
"At Fox News sat a man named McCain
Who once was put through some pain,
He met with O'Reilly who is quite unbeguiling,
Yet can be sesquipedalian in game.
Much was revealed,
As tough questions won't yield,
Hey Bill, thanks for edifying the field!"
John Tosi
Palm Coast, FL
MISCELLANEOUS
"Keep up the good work of fair and balanced reporting. It keeps the snollygosters on their toes."
Frank O'Rourke Jr.
Eastchester, NY |
| Posted by Factor Producers at 10:53 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 12, 2008 |
| This week's new O'Quiz is up |
See how well you know your current events by testing yourself with our brand new O'Quiz! See if you can best last week's average score of 4.77 out of 10, up marginally from the previous week's average of 4.61 out of 10. Good luck!
Go: This week's O'Quiz |
| Posted by BillOReilly.com Staff at 3:11 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
 |
|
|
| May 9, 2008 |
| This week's printable crossword is up |
We've posted a new O'Reilly crossword for you this week... now, you can print and play at home! Take a look!
Go: O'Reilly crossword |
| Posted by BillOReilly.com Staff at 3:12 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
| May 7, 2008 |
| Backstage Conversation returns next week |
Because of scheduling conflicts, the Backstage Conversation video webcast for Premium Members will return next week. We apologize for the delay.
In the meantime, if you're a BillOReilly.com Premium Member, submit your question for the webcast. Bill may personally answer your question!
Of course, Premium Members are always welcome to browse the full archive of Backstage Conversations. We'll see you next week with a new one. |
| Posted by BillOReilly.com Staff at 2:48 PM - Link to this entry
Discuss This Entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 7, 2008 |
| High Oil Prices and the International System |
Oil passed $120 per barrel today, which depending on how you measure it, means that it is about 20 percent higher than the highs reached in the late 1970s and early 1980s. In other words, this is getting serious. It is not the intensifying discussion of gasoline prices that we hear, but rather the impact that the price of oil is beginning to have on the global system. If oil prices continue at this level or rise, there will be long-term shifts in how the international system works.
One of these shifts is already obvious. The nations of the Arabian Peninsula have accumulated a tremendous amount of cash. Most other oil producers use surplus money from energy sales largely for internal purposes. Nigeria and Venezuela, for example, are not about to become international investors. The situation in Arabia is different. Those economies can't possibly absorb the money that is pouring in. Therefore the money-petrodollars, as we used to call them when we were young-is available for investment around the world. Much of that is coming into the United States in various flows, helping to stabilize equity markets, for example. But as in the 1970s, economic power translates into political influence-and the Arabian influence on a wide range of countries and issues will increase dramatically. The countries of the Arabian Peninsula will once again become the primary source of large-scale finance.
In the 1970s, one of the consequences of Arabian oil was the creation of a bulwark against left-wing radical Arab movements. The money was used to immunize Arabian regimes-and others-from the radicals' attacks. Whether the money will be deployed the same way against radical Islamist groups remains to be seen. But this much is certain: The Saudi regime, which had been under heavy internal pressure a few years ago, now has the ability to buy the loyalty of dissident tribes and factions.
The losers will be those countries that chose to industrialize most intensely. High oil prices have had less impact on the United States this time around than in the 1970s because of deindustrialization. Service industries like massage parlors and software companies use less energy than steel mills. The countries that have adopted industrialism, by contrast, are extremely vulnerable to high oil prices. And China, of course, has industrialized the most intensely. The higher the proportion of industrial plant, the more each dollar rise in the price of oil hurts. Under pressure from high food prices as well as oil, the Chinese economy faces the choice of raising prices on export goods and losing market share, or subsidizing exports even more than it does now. That is the short-term solution, but it is unsustainable in the long term.
Russia, which exports energy and uses the proceeds to modernize its energy industry, selectively acquire global assets and build new businesses in Russia, is using these high energy prices to reposition itself economically. And with that repositioning, it is acting more assertive geopolitically. Recent events in Georgia indicate the Russians are prepared to increase their pressure. The Russians also apparently have built financial reserves in case energy prices drop. The surge in energy prices has put Russia in a position to make a serious move to regain its position as a regional power.
These are critically important shifts to watch. The rise in oil prices is reordering the international system in decisive ways, just as it did in the 1970s. Oddly, the deindustrialized world is least affected. The winners in the industrial world are affected the most-and those countries without any industry at all, but with lots of energy reserves, are the big winners.
Oil prices may fall. One theory holds that as the United States moves out of the subprime crisis the dollar will rise, and that will chip away at the price of oil. As the price of oil starts to fall, speculators would thus be squeezed out and the fall would become more rapid. That may be the case-or oil may go to $150 per barrel for all we know. But we do know this: So long as oil stays above about $70 per barrel, the Arabian Peninsula will hold the whip hand in the financial world, China will be squeezed and the Russians will get stronger. And the United States and Europe will be the least affected, unless they fail to reposition themselves in the new order.
Stratfor is a private intelligence company delivering in-depth analysis, assessments and forecasts on global geopolitical, economic, security and public policy issues. A variety of subscription-based access, free intelligence reports and confidential consulting are available for individuals and corporations.
Click here to take advantage of 50% OFF regular subscription rates - offered exclusively for BillOReilly.com readers. |
| Posted by Stratfor.com at 11:40 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 5, 2008 |
| This week's new O'Quiz is up |
See how well you know your current events by testing yourself with our brand new O'Quiz! See if you can best last week's average score of 4.61 out of 10. (That's down significantly from the previous week's average of 5.58 out of 10. Oops!) Good luck!
Go: This week's O'Quiz |
| Posted by BillOReilly.com Staff at 2:51 PM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
| May 2, 2008 |
| This week's printable crossword is up |
We've posted a new O'Reilly crossword for you this week... now, you can print and play at home! Take a look!
Go: O'Reilly crossword |
| Posted by BillOReilly.com Staff at 11:43 AM - Link to this entry
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
