|
I
n p u t F r o m O u r R e a d e r s
Gays Acting Crazy! Re: "Charles C. Boycott and America's Christian Right" by Mel Seesholtz. You are kidding right? The evangelical right boycotted Disney because of the lewdness that is associated with gay day. My girlfriend got stuck there when she was a child and gays were hugging and kissing and acting crazy. Not to mention, their theme was "A day of fun, a night of pleasure". Disney should not advocate such grossness, whether it be hetero- or homosexuality. It is fine for them to have a gay day, but they need to have some sort of public conduct code in place because my children don't need to see the lewd PDA that goes on there. Derek Husser Editor's Note: Here's your solution: how about avoiding taking your children there during these gay days? The slogan is actually "A Day of Magic, a Night of Pleasure," but your version was quite gay as well.
Re: "The Theory of Relativity" by Brian Adler. While I enjoyed most of Adler's piece and found it greatly refreshing, I was a little disappointed by one comment: the one made about Texas Cowboys and their only reading their right-wing blogs. I would like to think that Mr. Adler was not implying that all of us in Texas are stupid, right-wing slaves. I would hope that it was a reference to one His Lordship, King Bush; who, by the way, is NOT a real Texan. He was neither born here, nor was he raised here. I may be over-reacting, but I am tired of people from other states, and even other nations, demonizing all Texans because of the self-appointed Voice of God and some idiots that have decided to follow him into hell. I enjoy this site very much and find it to be exceedingly refreshing compared to other news and opinion sources. I just hope I am wrong about Mr. Adler's intentions with the Texas Cowboy comment. Amy Cooley O'Reillyology Re: "A Canadian Look at Bill O'Reilly" by Robert Furs. It was an interesting analysis of O'Reilly. But again, you along with many others, don't nail Bill's real personality. First of all it's not ego that drives O'Reilly. It is his lack of self esteem. Everybody says the same thing about this man: it's his EGO, he's in love with himself. NO HE'S NOT! Anybody with two eye balls and ears, with clear perception, can really see what O'Reilly's real problems are. I think O'Reilly deep down is miserable. He can't even enjoy the money or status he has accomplished. If he really felt secure about himself, he wouldn't act the way he does. Bill is not really trying to convince us about his status as much as he's really trying to convince himself of it. Figuring if he screams it enough times, he'll finally think he has achieved something. And in a way, it really just shows how human he is. Linda Valerio
Terry Callen
Craig Quackenbush Can't Wait For The Lawsuits Re: "A Canadian Look at Bill O'Reilly" by Robert Furs. You got O'Reilly 100% correct, but you obviously have done no real research on Hubbard or you'd know that Bill O'Reilly represents everything the founder of Scientology says is wrong with our society. O'Reilly puts out misinformation enough. Please don't add to it. Bruce Clark, Editor's Note: Scientology puts out misinformation too! Unfortunately it's too late to add this to the O'Reilly-Hubbard comparison, but thank you for the suggestion.
Jon E. von Gunten Editor's Note:
Scientology? A religion? Not in this world. No Cheap Shots, But Remember: Al Franken Is A Deceitful Smear-Job Artist With His Pants on Fire! I appreciate your honesty
and forthrightness from the get-go that you are a socialist, that you
don't watch the O'Reilly Factor, and have not read his books.
This way your readers know where you are coming from. But you are
mistaken and being overly simplistic when you say things that O'Reilly
wouldn't like you because of your political leanings or that he is
anti-Canada "just because they disagree with him." Alan Skorski Editor's Note: A quick correction: the reference in the article's opening paragraph regarding the author being "socialist" served to illustrate O'Reilly's tendency to over-generalize, rather than identifying the author's actual political views. In addition, what possible argument could one have with Media Matters' "truth", which consists only of reproducing actual statements made by O'Reilly and others? I'd hope you'd use more sense than that when writing your unbiased book.
Re: "Canada's Blessings, Including Gay Marriage" by John Chuckman. The article is yet another comparative of how we measure up to our big neighbours to the south. Every issue we face is surrounded by choking dialogue comparing ourselves to the United States. Does Canada lack the ability or self-confidence to come up with a novel idea to suit our particular needs? Health care is a prime
example.Our nurses and doctors rant about how much better our system is
compared to the evil U.S. system, and then threaten to leave Canada for
work in U.S. private hospitals if wage demands aren't met. Politicians
demonize proponents of any semblance of private healthcare as their
medical needs are cared for immediately through private clinics and
doctors thus jumping the cue on ordinary Canadians who are put on ever
increasing wait lists. The debate on this issue has been stifled because
of our obsession of measuring up to the U.S. In defiance, we then look
to European countries to be our guide in search for a health system to
work in Canada. Craig Hunt
Re: "Equality
Won in Canada & Spain" by Mel Seesholtz. I must agree wholeheartedly
that Bias, Discrimination, & Hate, permeates throughout our country at
an alarming rate. Most of this lack of diversity understanding, roots
itself in many churches, by theological pulpit preaching conservative
right wing unprogressive zealots. I consider anyone, in any church, who
tries to manipulate their congregation, by maliciously indoctrinating
bias against another group of people, as Hypocritical Holiness. Mekah Gordon,
Bill Johnston
Re: "Religion, Politics, and Death by Stoning" by Mel Seesholtz. I am totally against gay people adopting children. I mean, let's say a gay couple adopts a five-year-old kid--wouldn't the kid be really confused when he/she saw them kissing? It's a bad example for the kids. Desirae S. Going Editor's Note: It's the twenty-first century. Most kids would be more confused by your letter.
Re: "Laura Ingraham's Paranoid Stereotypes" by Frank Wallis. Mr. Wallis has stooped low
to criticize Laura, who is an attorney, author and successful radio talk
show host. He says she uses crude stereotypes to define "elites" and her
comments are a "syllabus of errors". He, in turn, uses the rant of the
lonely lame liberal to make his case - and he fails. Dixon Webb Editor's Note: Who was it that was stooping low, again?
To refresh your memory, here’s your most compelling evidence; “No need to rehash in detail the blatant contradictions here.” And “it is the conservative businessmen who employ illegals by the tens of millions” “is absurd” As if stating opposition to an argument is proof. Further, you are now
historically inaccurate, that is, as usual, wrong. “al-Queda in league
with Saddam, etc.?” “The soldiers who go to Iraq signed up for a job,
because they needed paying work“ “George Bush had to back down in the
face of failure in Iraq “ and most laughable, "Ingraham's elite UN and
elite Chirac make Bush look like a fool." All of these statements are
now known to be liberal fantasy. Joe Rathaven Editor's Note: First of all, keeping liberals in the minority is a Karl Rove 'plot'. Secondly, elitist President Bush and his elite administration wouldn't be pleased to know that one of their supporters is guaranteeing them minority status. Why, Joe, why?
John Treggett Editor's Note: We will, as long as our great contributors continue with their unparalleled stamina! Oh, and more superlatives never hurt. |
© 2005 CounterBias.com