The O'Reilly Factor (FNC) - 1999-02-23 (partial)

Channel: malgent

Transcript

Language: English (original, YouTube automatic captions)

[0:02] Hey, now down here. Instead of running

[0:05] out for stamps, shouldn't you be running

[0:07] your business? Imagine a simpler way.

[0:10] Get the personal post office from

[0:11] Pittney Bose. Send mail without ever

[0:13] going out for stamps. Just weigh, punch

[0:15] in the postage, and voila.

[0:17] Professionally madeed mail and no wasted

[0:19] postage. You can also add a personal

[0:21] message to get your mail noticed and

[0:23] postage refills by phone in 30 seconds,

[0:25] day or night.

[0:27] >> Now, listen up, because here's what

[0:28] you'll get. Besides a lot more time,

[0:31] >> you'll get the personal post office and

[0:33] money-saving electronic scale,

[0:34] >> so there's no wasted postage

[0:36] >> for a 90-day free trial.

[0:37] >> Free is good.

[0:38] >> You'll also get the mail marketer

[0:40] software.

[0:41] >> Create really nifty direct mail to help

[0:42] your business grow.

[0:43] >> Call now for your 90-day free trial, and

[0:45] you'll also get our mail marketer

[0:47] software absolutely free.

[0:49] >> Now, watch your business grow. Hey, I

[0:52] look good in red.

[0:53] >> Be ready for the postage rate change.

[0:55] Call now for your 90-day free trial. The

[0:57] personal post office. Mailing made

[0:59] simple.

[1:19] >> In the impact segment today, Project No

[1:22] Spank here in California. The idea is to

[1:24] pass a law that would make it illegal

[1:26] for parents to spank their own children.

[1:28] Heading up the effort is Jordan Ryak,

[1:30] the executive director of an

[1:31] organization called Parents and Teachers

[1:34] Against Violence in Education. Mr. Ryak

[1:37] joins us from Oakland, California. Now,

[1:40] government intruding on child rearing,

[1:41] Mr. Ryak, isn't that a bit extreme? No,

[1:44] I think that uh government intrudes on

[1:47] child abuse and certainly committing a

[1:50] battery on a child is abusive and I

[1:53] think that government's role in

[1:55] protecting children uh should be equal

[1:57] to its role in protecting wives or

[1:59] employees or or anyone else.

[2:01] >> So in your mind any kind of spanking of

[2:04] a child is child abuse. Uh spanking is a

[2:08] euphemism. When you batter another

[2:10] person, no matter what name it's called,

[2:12] no matter what uh substitute word you

[2:14] find for it, when you commit a battery

[2:16] on another person, uh it's morally

[2:19] wrong, it's ethically wrong. Uh and to

[2:22] do it to a child is unconscionable.

[2:25] >> Okay. But I want to get the definition

[2:27] down. Were you are you saying that any

[2:29] kind of laying hands from a parent to a

[2:31] child, the parent lays hands on the

[2:33] child in an aggressive manner that would

[2:36] child qualify as child abuse?

[2:38] >> Uh I think that the the standard that

[2:41] I'd like to see applied is the same

[2:43] standard that applies for the treatment

[2:46] of adults by other adults or husbands

[2:48] and wives, how they would treat each

[2:50] other. I think children that means you

[2:52] can't lay hands on another person. If I

[2:54] lay on you,

[2:56] >> no, no, no. If I if I take you, Mr.

[2:58] Ryak, and shove you away or do something

[3:01] like that, I can be sued and you know

[3:03] it. I mean, if it's an unwelcome,

[3:05] >> you cannot lay hands on another person.

[3:07] >> Absolutely. If it's an unwelcome,

[3:09] sorry. So that you feel that parents

[3:11] should not be able to lay hands on their

[3:13] own children.

[3:14] >> Well, they it's not a matter of should

[3:15] be able to or permitted to. They should

[3:18] have enough sense to know that good

[3:19] parenting involves uh gentle touch,

[3:23] protective treatment, not hitting,

[3:25] whipping. Uh uh

[3:27] >> I think everybody everybody would agree

[3:30] that hitting, whipping, any kind of of a

[3:33] force um

[3:36] meant to inflict pain on a child, I mean

[3:38] severe pain is wrong. Not everybody

[3:40] agrees. Oh no, there's by no means all

[3:44] the time.

[3:44] >> I don't know. any children being brought

[3:46] into children are being brought into the

[3:48] ch into the children's hospital with

[3:50] welts and burns. Sure. The perpetrator

[3:53] said, "Oh, I was only disciplining her."

[3:55] I didn't

[3:56] >> Well, they're idiots. I mean, quite flat

[3:58] out says it's okay. They're idiots. Our

[4:00] traditions say it's okay.

[4:01] >> It depends. It depends. The government

[4:03] doesn't always say it's okay. There is a

[4:05] line. But when How do you react, Mr.

[4:07] Ray? How do you react when a guy like

[4:08] William Damon, the director of the

[4:10] Stanford Center on Adolescence, says,

[4:12] "Look, some degree of spanking is

[4:16] necessary to train a child to be

[4:19] responsive to your commands or whatever,

[4:22] and all children aren't the same. Some

[4:24] are more docile, some are more

[4:26] aggressive." Now, when authority right

[4:27] down the uh the uh street from you, like

[4:31] Mr. Damon says this, how do you react?

[4:33] >> Well, my reaction is he should really do

[4:35] do his homework. He should see how his

[4:37] he should see how his peers have voiced

[4:39] their opinions on this subject

[4:42] overwhelmingly. The the mental health

[4:45] field, the child development field, the

[4:47] American Academy of Pediatrics, the

[4:49] American uh Academy of Child and

[4:51] Adolescent Psychiatry, I can go down the

[4:53] list. Ment organizations such as these

[4:56] have overwhelmingly come down against

[4:58] hitting children. And you've managed to

[5:00] find one uh academic who's out of step.

[5:04] I'm sure you can find 50. I can find 50

[5:06] and we're going to have them on the

[5:07] broadcast and not this week but then I

[5:09] can find 150. Basically debatable

[5:13] situation. It's a debatable situation.

[5:15] >> Uh you could also find people who say

[5:17] look I smoked a packet of cigarettes a

[5:19] day and I'm in perfect health and live

[5:21] to 90. I mean in my case as my whole

[5:24] generation grew up in houses that were

[5:26] painted with leadbased paint and we

[5:28] could say well that proves that lead

[5:30] based paint is okay.

[5:32] We got we got your point.

[5:34] >> The bigger the bigger picture is though

[5:36] that you are advocating the government

[5:38] coming into a home and telling a parent

[5:43] how

[5:43] >> I'm not I'm not advocating that at all.

[5:46] You miss

[5:46] >> that's what a law would be.

[5:48] >> Well, first of all, our movement in

[5:50] Oakland was a resolution, not a law. It

[5:52] was advisory. It was educational. We

[5:55] want parents to learn better ways of

[5:57] parenting their children than committing

[5:59] battery on them. uh any more than law

[6:02] does. Law does not tell us how to run

[6:04] our marriages. But if we want to batter

[6:06] our wives, if we want to commit marital

[6:08] rape, uh if we want to have three wives,

[6:11] if we want to commit incest, then indeed

[6:13] the law does come into our house.

[6:15] >> Okay. But what I'm getting from you, and

[6:16] please correct me if I'm wrong, is that

[6:18] you wouldn't mind a law that says no

[6:21] spanking your kids. I would like to see

[6:24] the law give children exactly the same

[6:26] protection against assault and battery

[6:28] that every other class of citizen takes

[6:31] for granted. There was a time

[6:33] >> that's a tough one. That's that's a real

[6:34] government intrusion into the law.

[6:36] >> Wife beaters made the same complaint.

[6:38] You mean I can't chastise my own wife?

[6:41] They made that complaint 30 years ago.

[6:43] >> Uh they again you're not comparing

[6:46] apples to apples now. Wife beating is

[6:48] wife beating. A spanking on the bottom

[6:50] of a child is not wifebeating. I want to

[6:53] point to one more thing. In Sweden, as

[6:54] you might know,

[6:56] >> it's illegal to spank your kids. And in

[6:58] Sweden, they found out since the laws

[7:00] passed

[7:01] >> that there have been more problems with

[7:04] children with violent children than

[7:06] before. More problems with violent

[7:08] children after the spanking ban in

[7:10] Sweden than before. I'll give

[7:12] >> I think I think that you're looking at I

[7:14] I I would challenge your research, your

[7:17] >> That's absolutely true, Mr. Ryak.

[7:18] Absolutely true.

[7:19] >> If Sweden's experience was a bad one,

[7:22] why have eight other countries followed

[7:25] Sweden's example? Norway, Finland,

[7:27] Denmark, Austria, Cyprus, uh, Croatia.

[7:31] >> Oh, no. I'm just going by the study that

[7:32] was put out.

[7:33] >> Yeah. Well, you you picked like you

[7:35] picked that psychologist, you managed to

[7:36] find the ones that would prove

[7:38] >> that's what we do here. We're the

[7:39] devil's advocate, of course.

[7:40] >> Why Why does Why is Germany and Belgium

[7:44] considering the same law? Why wouldn't

[7:46] Sweden after 20 years, why wouldn't they

[7:49] reverse?

[7:50] >> Those are all good questions and in the

[7:51] weeks to come, we'll try to answer. Mr.

[7:52] Ryak, thank you very much. We appreciate

[7:54] it. Directly ahead, the movie Saving

[7:56] Private Private Ryan Savage.

[8:00] >> It never fails. If I spend money on

[8:02] something, the cats hate it. If it's

[8:05] free, they think it's wonderful. Bought

[8:07] the fancy bed. Flop. Free box it came

[8:10] in. Big hit. Wacky mouse. Flop. ball of

[8:15] aluminum foil free. So big hit. So I

[8:19] knew my cats would love this fun play

[8:20] center. Why? I got it free just for

[8:23] using my First USA Cat Lovers Platinum

[8:26] Mastercard.

[8:27] >> Let the world know you love cats with

[8:29] the First USA Catlovers Platinum

[8:31] Mastercard. And if you call right now,

[8:34] you'll get this Cat Play Center, a $39

[8:36] value free with your first purchase or

[8:38] balance transfer. The First USA Cat

[8:42] Lovers Platinum Mastercard is like a

[8:44] reward for your good credit. There's no

[8:46] annual fee and a low introductory

[8:48] interest rate of 3.9% that goes up to

[8:51] just 12.99% after 6 months. Plus, you

[8:54] can choose from three charming cat

[8:56] designs.

[8:57] >> Don't tell them, but I picked the one

[8:59] with the white cat. You get all the

[9:01] privileges that come with a Platinum

[9:03] Mastercard, like our special warranty

[9:05] program for those high ticket purchases,

[9:07] lost luggage protection, even airline

[9:09] flight insurance. And every time you use

[9:12] it, you let everyone know you're a cat

[9:15] lover.

[9:15] >> Now shopping is even more fun.

[9:18] >> With our low introductory rate of 3.9%,

[9:20] you can transfer balances from your high

[9:22] rate cards to your Cat Lovers Platinum

[9:25] Mastercard and save hundreds of dollars

[9:27] in interest. Think of what you could do

[9:29] with all that extra money.

[9:30] >> Well, now that they've got the play

[9:31] center

[9:33] and my belt, I guess they don't need any

[9:35] more toys.

[9:36] >> Don't forget, you get the cat play

[9:38] center with your first purchase or

[9:40] balance transfer. So, call and apply

[9:42] today.

[9:43] >> Call 1 8006265408

[9:46] to apply for a First USA Cat Lovers

[9:48] Platinum Mastercard and get this fun cat

[9:50] play center, a $39 value free with your

[9:54] first purchase or balance transfer. 1

[9:56] 8006265408.

[10:00] >> Think you could be a Wall Street wiz, a

[10:02] market maven, but don't have the cash?

[10:03] Well, here's your chance to cash in.

[10:05] Join Fox Market Wire's investment

[10:07] challenge. We give you $500,000 in

[10:10] virtual money and let you play the

[10:12] market. If by April 16th, your portfolio

[10:14] has the most moola, you win. No, you

[10:17] don't get to keep the cash, but you do

[10:18] get this. Lincoln pays the lease on a

[10:20] Lincoln Navigator for one full year. So

[10:22] show off your street smarts and join Fox

[10:24] Market's Investment Challenge. Sign up

[10:27] now.

[10:55] In the unresolved problem segment today,

[10:57] Saving Private Ryan, the movie has been

[10:59] nominated for best picture, Tom Hanks

[11:01] for best actor, and Steven Spielberg for

[11:03] best director. And in Hollywood, nobody

[11:06] says anything bad about Steven

[11:07] Spielberg. Enter Tom Carson, a writer

[11:10] for Esquire magazine, who is calling

[11:12] Saving Private Ryan a sophisticated

[11:15] piece of propaganda. Mr. Carson joins us

[11:18] now from Washington DC. I read your

[11:20] article twice, uh, Mr. Carson, and I

[11:22] it's you're making a lot of points here.

[11:24] Would you encapsulate the headline for

[11:26] us? What are you trying to get across?

[11:28] Well, um, the reason the reason I wrote

[11:31] the piece was

[11:33] the idea that Saving Private Ryan is not

[11:36] only a great movie, but the great

[11:38] memorial to World War II has gone pretty

[11:41] much uncontradicted

[11:43] uh, in public since the day the movie

[11:45] came out. And I thought, well, if the

[11:48] movie is that important, it's worth

[11:49] arguing about. Um, I wanted to take a

[11:52] take a crack at it. Um,

[11:56] I don't think it's a great movie. Uh, I

[11:58] think it's a really impressive looking

[12:01] movie, uh, with wonderful actors in it.

[12:04] Um,

[12:06] but I'm uncomfortable with the kind of

[12:09] patriotism

[12:11] um that it's selling because I think its

[12:15] message is

[12:18] strangely

[12:20] undemocratic and uh pro- athoritarian

[12:23] and uh well what I said in the piece was

[12:27] I I thought in lots of ways this was the

[12:28] kind of movie the Germans would have

[12:30] made about World War II if they won it.

[12:31] >> You said that Hitler would have liked

[12:33] this movie. Of course, it would have

[12:34] been his guys winning. All right, let's

[12:35] let's take it very specifically. Now,

[12:37] you said it's not the right kind of

[12:40] patriotism. When I watched the movie, I

[12:42] was

[12:43] >> I not right kind of patriotism, wrong

[12:45] kind of patriotism. I said it's a kind

[12:47] of patriotism that I found troubling.

[12:51] Okay.

[12:51] >> All right. Now, I need to know why. But

[12:53] first, I want to tell you what I

[12:54] thought. I thought the in-your-face

[12:55] violence was a little bit distracting

[12:58] for me. I didn't uh I've been in combat.

[13:01] I've seen people die. I know what it is.

[13:04] And when you use a camera to go right up

[13:06] somebody's nostril and all of that, I

[13:08] don't know.