Huffington vs O'Reilly

Photos by Chance Agrella

I regularly review the top news websites and watch the related videos. I have noted that Bill O'Reilly has, on occasion, pointed out blogs on 'The Huffington Post' that are venomous hate-filled attacks. These particular blogs made statements regarding the hope that certain individuals die horrible deaths (Former First Lady Nancy Reagan has been one of the targets of this hate, as has Tony Snow).

When a film crew from the Factor confronted Ms. Huffington about the kind of hate she allows on her site, she began talking about her efforts in taking down offensive comments (comments added to the end of blog posts by anyone in the general public), rather than address the question of the hate in the blog posts themselves.

She then went on to bash Mr O'Reilly in her website and again, rambled on about the reader comments rather than answering the question about the bloggers and their posts - which she routinely features on her front page.

The comments from readers on her website regarding her post about the incident were very illuminating. Many were filled with flat out hate for Bill O'Reilly and had no clue to what she was referring - only that it was an opportunity to bash him.

One of the first comments in the list that I saw mentioned that when readers submit comments they have to be approved before they will be posted. While the reader comments was not Mr O'Reilly's issue, the reader who made that comment pointed out, very clearly, that Ms Huffington was LYING. How could it be that hateful comments are 'taken down' when if they go through an approval process before they post, they would not be posted to begin with?

For the record, the hate spewed on The Huffington Post is not just towards republicans and Bill O'Reilly - there was plenty just today towards Bill Clinton and Hillary Clinton. Mrs Clinton's campaign has announced they have boycotted The Huffington Post due to all the hate speech on it from its contributors -the bloggers.

I think there is no question that Mr O'Reilly is not the most computer/Internet literate person in the world - he admits openly to this. His own wording may contribute to some confusion. However, for those who are web-savvy, it is very clear what he is talking about - if you listen to the whole message, rather than just jump on one word.

His commentary about the regular hate speech appearing on The Huffington Post including direct quotes, links, and comments from others who do understand the web, have all made it abundantly clear what the issue is and what the point is that he is making.

Shame on Ms Huffington for her lie, and for not bothering to do any research whatsoever into his claim in order to intelligently and directly address it. She took the low road of just bashing him, rather than addressing the issue.

 

MORE INFO:

Video Clip : The clip of Ms Huffington being asked about allowing hate speech by her bloggers on her website

Text: The post by Ms Huffington regarding her version of events, along with reader comments immediately below.

Utah Governor - Hurting Utah Teens for the sake of Half an Ounce

I posted on this issue recently, and read that the Governor of Utah, Jon Hunstman, in his infinite wisdom, signed into law the ludicrous and harmful bill. He commented that he didn't like the law because it will tarnish Utah's reputation, but signed it because it will increase shot sizes from 1 ounce to 1.5 ounces.

He forgot about the part where relegating the sale of 'alcopop' to liquor stores only also significantly increases the alcoholic content of the beverages. The whole issue behind the bill was to 'protect teens from alcohol'. Nice job - now when they get their hands on the 'alcopop' (and I guarantee they will) they can get more drunk  . . . faster!

We will have more teen drunk drivers, more alcohol poisonings, and more problems all resulting in more teen deaths.

Priority was given to shot size over the safety of Utah youth and 'the reputation' of Utah State - way to go GOVERNOR!

Read the KSL News synopsis HERE (Please note that they alter stories without notice or warning when new facts come in - the comment section that accompanies the article can alert you to any changes they have made).

Why Reverend Wright Matters in Obama's Campaign

I have been watching this story unfold with a great deal of interest, and feel it is now time to speak up about something I only saw kind of referenced yesterday - by Bill O'Reilly - coincidentally after I fired off an email to his show mentioning it.

When people seek out a church/religion, generally they are seeking God or a better way to live. They may want answers, comfort, peace, or knowledge. What gets people to stay with a particular church/pastor is that they find what is being espoused is congruent with their particular belief set. If there is a strong conflict between the two, people will leave and seek out other churches/religions/pastors. This is evidenced in many discussions about churches/religions changing their policies/stances on various issues in order to stop congregants from leaving.

The evidence is overwhelming that Reverend Wright has not only preached anti-American venom from the pulpit, but that he has done it multiple times - which illustrates that he was not speaking rashly, but from his deepest set of beliefs. Add to that the continual and repeated references from his own lips regarding how whites hold back/put down/victimize blacks.

Obama attended this church and listened to the ravings of this pastor for TWENTY YEARS. For 20 years, Barack Obama and his wife sat in the church and listened to all the venom spewed by Reverend Wright. For 20 years, they found enough congruence between their own beliefs and what he was preaching to continue to stay - and I would bet, financially support the church/pastor.

Recently, Michelle Obama was accused of making anti-American statements (essentially the same statement reworded on several occasions). Is it any wonder that she would say such things as how ashamed she is of America when shame of, hate for, and the blaming of America is routinely preached in the church she attends?

And what of Obama and his campaign? Can we really have as our leader and representative someone who has, for 20 years, found enough congruence with his own beliefs to continue to attend a church led by Reverend Wright, and whose own wife also makes anti-American statements? How can someone who believes whites are out to get blacks, and that America is an evil and shameful country possibly fairly serve the interests of its citizens?

UPDATE TO POST:

Several things have come out since I made this post, that I felt I needed to add for your information:
Video - Barack Obama Responds
Contradiction to Barack Obama's Claimed 'Stand' on 'hate speech'
Video Clip - Bill O'Reilly's Take on Barack Obama's Response
Video Clip - Newt Gingrich and Bill O'Reilly discuss Barack Obama's Response
Article: Ann Coulter Weighs In on Obama's Response
Article: Pat Bachanan Weighs in On Obama Reply - Points out Some Facts

IMPORTANT NOTE: If you go to the Barack Obama website and pass along ANYTHING from it (i.e. "email this to a friend") be warned - they will begin to spam you! Then you have to 'unsubscribe' AND give them a reason WHY you are unsubscribing. How about 'you collected my email information without my knowledge or consent and then spammed me!'

California Judges and Moronic (and illegal) Rulings

 

Two different articles I read today have led me to wonder what is going on with our judicial system and why these judges are not immediately removed from the bench.

The first one comes out of California and is some completely ludicrous, factually incorrect,  constitutionally contradictory, and potentially illegal, that it is astonishing this judge has been allowed thus far to be on the bench since he clearly has zero understanding of the constitution.

Point of fact: while the constitution does not grant educational rights to parents, it does not grant them to the state, either. This means that because it also states that rights not specifically granted to the states go to the individual, parents DO in fact have the right, because they are the individuals whom the educational rights fall upon.

Our next moronic ruling also comes out of California (are the judges there smoking dope or something? Sheesh!) and is in regards to the rights of foster children to enlist in the military. The judge's ruling denying the youth the right to an early enlistment stated that she was denying the request due to her own personal feelings regarding the war in Iraq and about military recruiters. Since when are judges allowed to rule on personal beliefs rather than on points of law?

I almost moved to California last year. There is more than one reason staying where I am has turned out to be a blessing. Looks to me like a case of the inmates running the asylum based upon recent events coming out of California.

Important Cancer Screening and Detection Information for Women

While I have lost tremendous respect for Rosie O'Donnell, I have embedded the following video from her because it contains very important cancer screening and detection information for women in it. I came across it when I saw reports about an incident between Larry King and Fran Drescher. The search for details led me to a site which had this video.

I was horrified (but not exactly surprised) to learn that so many helpful tests  used for the early detection of cancer in women are NOT covered by insurance. That needs to change.

Speaking of cancer, early National Enquirer reports about Patrick Swayze having cancer have turned out to be partially true. Score one point for them actually getting something right.

On my final cancer note, please be sure, Ladies and Gentleman, to do all you can to keep yourself healthy and screen accurately for cancer. More information about cancer may be found at the National Cancer Institute website.

"Alco-Pop", Liquor Laws, and Legislative Stupidity

For those of you who have never been to Utah, one thing becomes very clear very quickly to tourists who consume alcoholic beverages: Utah has the strangest liquor laws in the country.

While I, myself, am not a drinker, I have found myself both intrigued and disgusted by the current 'debates' raging over "alco-pop" in Utah. The term was coined to describe drinks such as Mike's Hard Lemonade which have a 'flavor', and which the legislators insist attract teenage drinkers.

Here is a news flash: those teens who want to consume alcohol are not really concerned about the fun flavors - most alcohol has some nastiness to its taste. Teens who drink are mostly concerned about having fun and being uninhibited/brave: both of which they associate with drinking alcohol.

So, in its infinite wisdom, the Utah State Legislature has spent considerable time in this session creating and passing a law which would take "alco-pop" out of the grocery stores and put it into liquor stores. This plan has now backfired on them. While both entities have to I.D. individuals before selling alcohol to them, the "alco-pop" sold in grocery stores was of a lower alcoholic content.

Now because it will have to be sold in the liquor store, the rules have changed and the alcoholic content will increase significantly. This means that those teens with access to these beverages will now be getting significantly more alcohol per bottle than they did before. We may well see more problems associated with teen drinking now, rather than less.

Way to go, Utah State Legislature. I am so glad to see my tax dollars going to such a worthy cause instead of other trite issues like lowering my taxes, improving our schools, etc.

The Angel Eyes of Jeff Healey

Jeff Healey, leader of the Jeff Healey Band, died Sunday March 2, 2008 due to cancer. Famous for the song 'Angel Eyes'; what some may not know is that he was blind.

His final album is due to be released in April 2008.

You may find Angel Eyes Lyrics here, and you may enjoy the music video here.

Goodbye Sweet Music Man. Thank you for sharing your amazing talent with us all.