Bill O'Reilly, Amateur Psychologist, Professional Asshat

Roger Waters once wrote about "the bravery of being out of range," that certain kind of machismo that is exuded by certain folks from the safety and comfort of their easy chair or bar stool. We've seen a good bit of that in the past few years, courtesy of some right-wing pundits.

For example, there's the legion of the 101st Fighting Keyboardists, bloggers who not only argue in support for the war in Iraq, but question the morality and patriotism of those who oppose the war, all while hanging out behind their computer screen rather than heading down to the armed forces recruiting center to enlist.* The Waters song, coincidentally, was written about the first Gulf War.

Then we had the story of a reporter and Fox News cameraman who were kidnapped in Gaza last year and forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint in order to secure they're freedom. The common reaction would be, "wow, I can't imagine what that kind of situation would be like." But for some bloggers, the reaction, as detailed here, was - "pussies!" How anyone sitting behind a computer keyboard in the United States can begin to understand, much less criticize, someone else's decision making is such a situation escapes me.

The most recent example of this sort of thinking comes from our favorite, Bill O'Reilly. On his show the other night, Bill opined about Shawn Hornbeck, the 15-year old boy who was recently rescued from a kidnapper after four years of captivity (another young boy, who had been missing only briefly, had been snatched by the same guy). Bill wants to know why Hornbeck, who had some access to and contact with the outside world, didn't simply walk away from his captor? It's a legitimate enough question worth exploring - what kind of psychological factors would cause someone being held against their will to not run away at the first opportunity?

But that's not what Bill is after. He boldly announces that he simply doesn't believe in Stockholm Syndrome, wherein a kidnap victim develops sympathy and loyalty for his kidnapper. Since that concept is bunk, Bill concludes that the kid - who was, let's remember, 11 years old when kidnapped - hung around because he liked the situation he was in. He's not a good kid, doesn't love his parents, didn't miss his family, etc. How Bill has figured this out is beyond me (maybe he's contracting with Bill Frist for long-distance video-based medical opinions). Regardless, it shows again what an asshat Bill is, questioning the motivations of a 15-year-old kidnap victim. As if anyone needed any further proof.

What do all these things have in common? The bravery of being out of range. The desire to opine from a perceived position of knowledge regarding some situation about which they have no clue. I know we extol people to try and "walk a mile in someone else's shoes" as an attempt to generate empathy, but it's a futile exercise when it comes to critiquing decision making. All the mental gymnastics I can try cannot put me in the mind of a journalist in a foreign land presented with a life-or-death ultimatum or an 11 to 15 year old kid who has been kidnapped and ripped away from the life he knew. It's just not possible. Moreover, it encourages the kind of banal second guessing that Bill is doing now. Asking questions is one thing. Presuming the answers, and attacking those who didn't get them right, is quite another.

* For what it's worth, I'm with Glenn Greenwald in separating the members of the 101st and other "chickenhawks" from those who simply support the war in general. It's the demonization of the opposition, because this is the defining conflict of our era and dissent helps the enemy, that begs the question - if it's so important to require running roughshod over long-held Constitutional rights, why aren't you signing up to go do the fighting?