Columnist’s criticism of right-wing talk show host
Re: “Bill O’Reilly’s bullying ways merit apology,” Oct. 25 Cindy Rodriguez’s column.
I totally agree with Cindy RRodriguez about the techniques used by media celebrity Bill O’Reilly and other conservative talking heads. They have stifled meaningful debate on issues. There is no more middle ground. We can’t have discussion or find agreement. It has turned politics into a hurtful and disagreeable arena. I feel it has driven many people away from participation. Most of the media celebrities are in it for the money, and care little about the issues themselves.
I applaud Rodriguez for her comments and wish more would stand up to this wrong that is being done.
Bill May, Briggsdale
…
I watch Bill O’Reilly quite regularly. I would guess that Cindy Rodriguez does not, nor does Macarena Hernandez. I have seen O’Reilly debate the illegal immigration issue to no end, with many guests from both the left and the right. Many intelligent and innovative solutions are always brought up and discussed – sometimes quite passionately. When a guest – sometimes from the right, but most often from the left – starts to drift and resort to toeing the party line and just offering the standard “talking points,” O’Reilly does not allow it. He will call them on it and make them answer a question and stay on topic.
Rodriguez calls O’Reilly a bully. Why? Because he is tough on guests and does not throw them “softball” questions like Matt Lauer, Katie Couric or any of the many liberal TV clones? I call him a populist. I do not always agree with him, but he makes good points and does a great job of having both sides of an issue represented. This is something that ABC, CBS, NBC, PBS, CNN and NPR – and The Denver Post – seem unwilling to do.
Michael Zsitnyar, Lakewood
…
Cindy RRodriguez had the courage to write an article about how Bill O’Reilly “resorts to personal attacks because that’s what bullies do.” In her well-written article, she had the courage to be vulnerable and expose how he continues to harm people long after they’ve been shattered on his show.
O’Reilly is a personality example I don’t admire, but then you don’t go on his show to experience grace, humility and love. Why subject yourself to this kind of denigration? It’s called bad chi energy. He’s been “successful” because he uses the “low side” of his personality preference to control and demean people. Low side (versus “high side”) means he is controlling, loud, domineering, reckless, confrontational, angry, plus he uses force to intimidate and he’s insensitive to the opinions and feelings of others. What does his personality actually fear: Being controlled by someone who is unfair?
What we fear, we deal out.
Sandra Ford Walston, Denver
Offended by “pro-life” advertisement
Driving in Cherry Creek recently, I saw a truck covered with graphic photographs of an aborted fetus with the words “Stop Abortion Now!” painted underneath them. I found it a horrific display of sensationalism.
Those who advocate this view are “pro-life.” They believe that from the moment of conception, a fetus has its own life, separate from that of its mother. If this fetus deserves “the right to life,” it also deserves to have others respect its life. Having no ability to speak for itself, it can neither consent to nor deny permission to use its body in ads such as these. Using its corpse as a shock tactic is not respecting the life, or the death, of an unborn child.
Picture the response if those against the Iraq war used graphic images of the mutilated corpses of soldiers to promote their message. If a fetus has its own life, why is it different?
I hope that no matter the manner of my death, the people who love me respect me enough to keep my corpse from becoming sensationalist propaganda.
Lacey Castellano, Denver
—————————————-
Remembering the Merchant Marines
This Veterans Day, Nov. 11, join with me in thanking the forgotten veterans of World War II, the Merchant Marines.
Most people don’t realize that these men and women served their country without any recognition or veteran status until 1988, at which time most of them were too old to utilize benefits such as money for college, job preferences, etc. They had more casualties proportionally than any other branch of the armed services during World War II, yet were virtually ignored after their great service to our country.
I know because my father served in the Merchant Marines, and because he was not considered a vet, he was drafted again. At the age of 28, he had to leave his wife and unborn child to serve during the Korean War. This happened because of a lack of support for mariners.
There is a bill pending in the Senate, S. 1272, that would finally recognize and say thanks to them. Call Sen. Wayne Allard or Sen. Ken Salazar’s office and tell them to give these veterans the respect that has been denied them for so long.
Anne Godfrey, Monument
Second Amendment
Re: “Gun makers’ liability and the 2nd Amendment,” Oct. 27 Open Forum.
Letter-writer Jeffrey S. Ryan has shown himself to be a pretty superficial scholar of the constitutional framers, with his comments such as, “no one was talking about a personal right to own weapons,” and, “None of the writings of the framers lends support to a ‘personal right.”‘ He missed such statements as:
“The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun.” – Patrick Henry
“Arms in the hands of citizens may be used at individual discretion … in private self-defense.” – John Adams
“The best we can hope for concerning the people at large is that they be properly armed.” – Alexander Hamilton
Probably the most telling is Elbridge Gerry’s 1789 statement, “What sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty.” Clearly the Founders meant the Second Amendment to apply to all free men, not only to protect the country from invaders and to protect home and family from criminals, but to protect the country from an oppressive government.
Bill Dietrick, Pueblo West
Teaching Western civilization at CU
Re: “Veni, vidi, study: CU starts Western Civ center,” Oct. 20 news story.
I am baffled that the University of Colorado’s meager $5,000 commitment to a program focusing on the rise of Western civilization is seen as a great step forward. Am I naive to wonder why a major state university does not, as part of its academic core, already offer a substantial range of liberal arts courses that ground the student in the history and culture of Europe and the U.S.? I cannot fathom the extent to which the world of “higher education” must have devolved in these last 16 years to make a university’s inclusion of the classics of Western civilization big news.
The fact that this program is considered noteworthy at all, and the tentativeness with which it is being advanced, reinforce my decision to home school my own children using a classical educational model. Who could guess that knowing Latin and English grammar, Homer and Dante and Milton, would place them on the academic cutting edge?
Christine Sullivan, Lakewood
TO REACH US
Phone: 303-820-1331
Fax: 303-820-1502
E-mail: openforum@denverpost.com (only straight text, not attachments)
Mail: The Open Forum, The Denver Post, 1560 Broadway, Denver, 80202 or PO Box 1709, Denver, 80201
Letters guidelines: The Post welcomes letters up to 200 words on topics of general interest. Letters must include full name, home address and day and evening phone numbers. Letters may be edited for length, grammar and accuracy.
