Bests & Worsts Reviews from Amazon

Mike Huckabee wrote a book a few years ago in which he divided Americans into Bubbleville vs. Bubbaville. “Old School” promotes the same kind of us vs. them mentality, except this time it’s Old School vs. Snowflakes. The more you think like O’Reilly, the more you’re a righteous Old Schooler; the less you think like him, the more you’re a pathetic Snowflake. At least this approach is less likely to someday lead to a civil war than Huckabee’s geographically divisive approach. This book reminds me of Dana Carvey’s SNL grumpy old man character. It’s basically 101 different ways of saying, “When I was a kid, we walked 5 miles to school every day, through 3 feet of snow, uphill both ways, and we liked it just fine!” And just like the grumpy old man, it bemoans the newer problems of the day, ranging from smartphone addiction to sexual immorality to “eating healthy” (do they wish to live shorter lives) while failing to mention the modern improvements, like decreases in domestic abuse, air/water pollution, and poverty (which fell from 19% in 1964 to 11% in 1999, back to 15% by 2010, and now back down to 12-13%). “If old school values don’t come back, our planet is doomed” is what we all heard growing up, and now we get to hear these exact words again in chapter 10 of this book. Otherwise, the authors generally keep it light and try to use humor to get their points across, but it usually falls flat. They’re just not that funny. They kind of remind me of Sarah Palin on SNL in 2008, who seemed to think that clever jabs at opponents are the same thing as comedy. Old School isn’t just a bit lame; however, it’s ideologically dangerous, too, because its authors glorify the merciless world in which they grew up. For example, in Ch. 1, “If I’d worn a bicycle helmet when I was a kid, I would have been mocked beyond belief…If a kid kicked someone in a fight, he was blacklisted. Only fists…” O’Reilly encourages us to despise a world where individuals feel free to make prudent personal safety decisions without having to worry about being harassed for it, or where all fighting is dishonorable, because fighting is seen as the true sin, not the technicality of how you commit the sin. And of course, O’Reilly longs for Old School racism and sexism in Ch. 4, when, in an analogy involving the show Dragnet, says, “Only, today, you can be sure it wouldn’t be Sgt. Joe Friday – maybe Josephine or Jose.” As if there’s something terribly wrong with having a female or Hispanic sergeant. O’Reilly claims to be Christian, but promotes a world in which bullies win and thinkers lose. He even fondly recalled his father’s bully-ish ways in Ch. 5: ... “Fish sticks. ‘What kind of fish is this,’ I once asked my father. Immediately, an Old School reply came back, ‘Barracuda, What do you care?”….So being old school is to hate thinking and belittle children for having a desire to learn. No thanks, O’Reilly. I prefer to be an intelligent snowflake who encourages children to think. People like O’Reilly’s dad are the cause of our problems. But O’Reilly thinks they’re the solution. Ultimately, this book promotes the dangerous hidden message that people being cruel to you makes you stronger, which, in turn, provides you with the justification you need to pass that cruelty onto your subordinates. There’s nothing Christian about that. Chapter 2, 13 & 14 include lists, like an “Are you old school or a snowflake pop quiz,” “You’re Old School if”…&… “You’re a snowflake if”… For example, “You’re a snowflake if you can actually tell all the superhero movies apart.” Really? Or, here’s my favorite… “You’re a snowflake if you believe that anyone who disagrees with you isn’t just wrong, but despicable.” Hmmm…is there really that much of a difference between calling someone despicable or calling them a snowflake? Hypocrisy much? Unsurprisingly, O’Reilly presents us with the false narrative that we have to choose between simple minded extremes of being a Snowflake or being Old School - no middle ground - just like when, over the years, he has presented us with false choices of pure capitalism vs. pure socialism (most countries practice Modified Capitalism), protective regulations vs. “freedom,” and personal responsibility (if you’re poor, it’s your fault, so you’re on your own) vs. freeloading. And to make matters worse, he often misrepresents the Snowflakes with lines like, “Don’t want my tax money going to people who use the government’s generosity to buy drugs or booze,” [food stamps can’t be used for that] or “Unlike Bernie Sanders, we didn’t expect anyone to pay for our higher education.” Maybe that’s because education costs didn’t bury people in a lifetime of debt; but hey, why should O’Reilly try to understand someone else’s situation? It’s his job to blame the less fortunate, not to create solutions for them. But to be fair, O’Reilly does have a solution for the Snowflakes, which is to be as hard-working and righteous as O’Reilly: “My old school values actually saved me from the 60s…I stayed sober, accomplishing a lot and setting the table for a successful career,” or “Show up early for work as much as you can. The luck will follow.” … Working hard and staying clean isn’t enough for millions of Americans. Automation and the internet have killed millions of jobs, while honest people struggle to make it in a world of corporate scams and exploitation. If a corporate economy has 200 million workers but only 180 million jobs, 20 million people have to be out of work. It’s these macroeconomic realities that O’Reilly refuses to address. ..Ironically, one of the authors refers to himself as “Lucky” for not getting drafted into Vietnam… Perhaps had O’Reilly come home severely wounded, his career might not have gone so well. O’Reilly and his friend would rather not think about all of the things that could have blocked their success, like poor health/injuries, lack of natural talent, refusal to deceive or exploit others, bad looks, lack of consumer demand, changing markets, poor timing, etc. They’d rather be arrogant toward the less fortunate, because it helps them feel superior and therefore entitled to their riches. The only positive in this book is that it does call out some of the most ridiculous far left extremism, which is easy to find in a nation of over 300 million people. But even then, it mocks it rather than provide logical reasons as to why people should behave differently. This isn’t a thinker’s book, at all. There’s really nothing to learn from reading it that will be of any benefit to anyone.