What’s Bill O’Reilly got against Jennifer Aniston? The popular Fox News commentator slammed the Hollywood darling for her comments about wanting to be a single parent. During yesterday’s ‘Back of the Book’ segment, O’Reilly discussed Aniston’s latest comments with the ‘Culture Warriors’, Gretchen Carlson and Margaret Hoover. Jennifer Aniston recent told People Magazine “Women are realizing more and more, knowing that they don’t have to settle with a man just to have a child.”
Now, in context, Aniston is making the rounds promoting a new movie where she plays a single mom who gets pregnant through a sperm bank and learns years later that her best friend switched the anonymous sperm sample with his own. Yes, this is a ‘comedy’. So needless to say, Aniston, who is 41, single and without children herself, is obviously going to comment on the subject and do so sympathetically.
Of course, Culture Warrior Bill O’Reilly will have no part of this! He believes the message she is sending to “12-year-olds and 13-year-olds that ‘Hey you don’t need a guy. You don’t need a dad.’ That is destructive to our society.”
Bill goes on to point out that while Aniston is wealthy enough to hire plenty of help in raising a child, most people are not. He says “But she can’t hire a dad. Dads bring a psychology to children that in this society is under emphasized. Men get hosed all day long in the parental arena.” Bill adds that while some man do avoid their responsibilities, and are wrong for doing so “But the fathers that do try hard are under-appreciated and diminished by people like Jennifer Aniston.”
Gretchen Carlson agreed with Bill on Aniston, that “She is glamorizing single parenthood.” Margaret Hoover attempted to draw the distinction between the plight of unattached 40-year-old women and teenage girls raising children as single parents. Hoover also had to correct Carlson, who said Aniston had never married, when in fact she once was married to Brad Pitt.
So what do you think? Did Bill O’Reilly slam Jennifer Aniston too hard for her remarks? Is he just an over-the-hill fuddy-duddy whom should wake up and smell the 21st Century? Or is he Bill right and Aniston is indeed a dangerous threat to our civilization?
Related Articles:
Bill O’Reilly Slams Jennifer Aniston for Single-Parenthood Comments
O’Reilly: ‘Jennifer Aniston is destructive’
Bill O’Reilly: Jennifer Aniston Is ‘Destructive to Society’
August 12th, 2010 at 3:07 pm
Comic relief.
No breaks, no paragraphs… it actually sounds like drunk broken hearted Brian
August 12th, 2010 at 3:36 pm
I’ve read it a few times – I’m still not sure if Jen is better to her breasts than Cameron.
August 12th, 2010 at 3:59 pm
Ha ha Robbie!
Hey, Andy…that was even crazier than some of your posts!
August 12th, 2010 at 4:03 pm
Andy, just so you know, I’m only kiddin.’ You’ve only written one post where I seriously considered asking you if…everything was…ok. That would be your post comparing Glenn Beck to Howard Roark.
August 12th, 2010 at 6:08 pm
When did Andy write that Ginnie? I would love to read it!!!
I recently asked my children to read The Fountainhead
August 12th, 2010 at 6:22 pm
Here you go, Faye:
http://www.rightpundits.com/?p=6810
I almost wrote an addendum to it today, since Beck was clearly more Howard Beale on this evening’s show.
“So if you want the truth… Go to God! Go to your gurus! Go to yourselves! Because that’s the only place you’re ever going to find any real truth.” – Howard Beale
August 12th, 2010 at 6:25 pm
Alright, the Mob has spoke. QueenCam’s ‘rant’ stays!
It is sort of amusing in a rambling-monotone sort of way.
August 12th, 2010 at 6:44 pm
It sounds like something “Buffalo Bill” from Silence Of The Lambs would say.
I’m sure Brian will be thrilled to be lumped in with that freak
August 12th, 2010 at 8:21 pm
Ah yes, that was the post. You were quite delirious, Andy.
Faye, this may come as a surprise to you, me being one of the token lefties around here, but I’ve actually read The Fountainhead, along with Atlas Shrugged and Anthem. The first was my favorite. She masterfully depicted the depressing favoritism given to mediocrity, particularly in the arts. Sadly, we see that more than ever today, where AutoTuned pop music wins Grammy awards, and actual talent never sees the light of day, for the most part. You really have to look for good books, music, and movies on your own.
August 12th, 2010 at 8:32 pm
LOL! Ginnie, in honor of you, I decided to write it after all. Hehehe. C’ya tomorrow!
August 13th, 2010 at 6:00 am
I always thought Rand was intensely compelling as a philosopher, but sub-par as a novelist. Overwrought, lacking subtlety, poor character development, overly preachy. And way too long.
And this is coming from a libertarian who agrees with essentially every one of her philosophical tenets. She would have made a better blogger than novelist.
August 13th, 2010 at 7:23 am
Rhayader, as usual, I hold the complete opposite view of your own, in this instance, about Rand’s writing.
Although I agree she got overly preachy in certain parts, like the Howard Roark trial scene where he gives his endless monologue.
I disagree with a good deal of her philosophy, although I certainly understand how her personal background contributed to it. I thought most of her characters really came to life, with a few exceptions, like John Galt and actually, Howard Roark. She portrayed them as virtually emotionless, whereas with her female lead characters, you could experience their emotions and thoughts.
She also had a biting wit. There is a part in The Fountainhead I always thought was really funny, where the media mogul relocates the entire old world village his phony actress mistress always makes a point of claiming she misses – right smack in the city. Hilarious!
August 13th, 2010 at 7:24 am
@ Rhayader
There’s no shortage of Ayn Rand essays, columns and speeches. It’s all good stuff!
August 13th, 2010 at 7:25 am
Back to Andy’s original subject for this post…has anyone seen Jennifer Aniston’s response to Bill O’Reilly? I thought it was humorous and completely disarming. I wonder if he’ll take it that way.
August 13th, 2010 at 7:51 am
I disagree with a good deal of her philosophy
I mean, her entire philosophy boils down to the idea that the initiation of force is immoral. Seems ok to me.
I agree she got overly preachy in certain parts, like the Howard Roark trial scene where he gives his endless monologue.
Not to mention the freaking 400 page John Galt speech. Best cure for insomnia ever devised.
There’s no shortage of Ayn Rand essays, columns and speeches. It’s all good stuff!
Yep, and that stuff always seemed more effective than her fiction to me.
Fun fact of the day: you guys know she was a hardcore amphetamine addict for decades, yes?
August 13th, 2010 at 7:54 am
Yep, plus she chain-smoked and liked to drink, too. Hey, she’s a writer in Hollywood!
August 13th, 2010 at 9:53 am
Heh, its kind of ironic, I see it alot in my business. Sharp motherfckers self medicating.
The most creative wonderful and intelligent people in our history have been addicts/boozers.
And some of the most dangerous at times
August 13th, 2010 at 11:21 am
No, I didn’t know that, but that could explain the length of her books.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:29 am
Rhayader: “I mean, her entire philosophy boils down to the idea that the initiation of force is immoral.”
That is not what her philosophy boils down to, believe me. Did you read the Slate article that talked about her praising a man who killed and raped a young girl?
An excerpt: “Rand wrote great stretches of praise for him, saying he represented “the amazing picture of a man with no regard whatsoever for all that a society holds sacred, and with a consciousness all his own. A man who really stands alone, in action and in soul. … Other people do not exist for him, and he does not see why they should.” She called him “a brilliant, unusual, exceptional boy,” shimmering with “immense, explicit egotism.” Rand had only one regret: “A strong man can eventually trample society under its feet. That boy [Hickman] was not strong enough.”
Full article here: http://www.slate.com/id/2233966
August 13th, 2010 at 11:50 am
Hmmm, I would have to read the whole article and get the full context of what Rand was talking about. I find it difficult to believe that she was “praising” Hickman was a criminal rapist. But we often hear people comment that so-and-so criminal has a “brilliant mind”. Just look at this idiot ‘Bare-Foot-Bandit’. His own mother has said his IQ was on par with Einstein.
Back in the day, people thought very highly of people like John Dillinger and Al Capone. Heck, you have TIME Magazine naming Mussolini ‘Man of the Year’ even though he slaughtered people in Ethiopia and the Sudan using poison gas bombs. Both Lindberg and Hearst praising Adolph H. Plenty were gushing over Stalin while he starved millions of his own people.
Rand’s philosophy is one of the individual and voluntary-ism.
August 13th, 2010 at 11:52 am
This Slate article was obviously a ‘hit piece’ so taking a sentence or even just parts of sentences is dubious at best.
August 13th, 2010 at 12:09 pm
Rhayader: “Rand’s philosophy is one of the individual and voluntary-ism.”
You said it boiled down to being against initiating things by force. Now you’re changing it.
At any rate, if you’ve really studied her books, perhaps you remember the rape scene in The Fountainhead? Of course, she characterized it as the female character “wanting” to be raped, but it’s still indicative of her approval of people using brute force to get what they want if they’re the kind of people she approves of.
I believe her philosophy boils down to a hatred for most of society, as also evidenced in her books. She clearly subscribed to a very hierarchical structure, believing few people were capable of making the right decisions for society. She was completely anti-democracy. This showed in her example of the worker-owned factory, which she portrayed as basically going to pieces when the workers were given the power to run it. That didn’t have anything to do with government, taxes, regulation, or what you might view as “taking things by force.”
August 13th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
Andy Z: “This Slate article was obviously a ‘hit piece’ so taking a sentence or even just parts of sentences is dubious at best.”
And yet in just another post, you happily agreed she was also a drugged out chain-smoker, something else the Slate article cites.
Regardless, my opinions about Rand’s philosophy are based on having read three of her books. The Slate article, if true, means she was even more disturbed than I thought. But like I originally said, her background and struggles in Bolshevik Russia offer some understanding there.
August 13th, 2010 at 12:12 pm
That is not what her philosophy boils down to, believe me.
Believe you? Nah let’s actually investigate it instead.
“Based on this understanding of the role of reason, Objectivists hold that the initiation of physical force against the will of another is immoral,[60] as are indirect initiations of force through threats,[61] fraud,[62] or breach of contract.[63]”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)
The provided references tie back to Rand’s own “The Virtue of Selfishness” and Leonard Peikoff’s “Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand”. So I’m gonna go ahead and stick to my guns: the central ethical tenet of Objectivism is that the initiation of force is immoral.
And yeah, that Slate piece is slanted as hell. Note that the only two words that display an actual approval or lack thereof for this murderer — “praise” and “regret” — are from Slate, not from Rand. None of her actual quoted words (which were from her diary anyway, not her published work) constitute anything more than observation.
August 13th, 2010 at 12:18 pm
@ Ginnie
I thought you Left-wing types liked people who used drugs?