Say one thing, do the opposite

Dear Deb:

A few quick comments. I don't always agree with Mr. Argento, but I don't think calling him names ("the looney left") is a helpful way to discuss matters here in our community. There is enough hostility, and Mr O'R too often uses this colorful, uncivil language, and you ought to be better than that.

Secondly, while it may be that some leftists "say one thing and do another" I think if we are honest, we could find examples of all kinds of folks doing that; hypocritical habits aren't just a lefty thing, and your implication that it is strikes me as pretty one-sided and inaccurate. Don't you think?

Thirdly, Argento is, after all, a satirist. Half of what he says is goofy and zany, sometimes the reverse of what he really means; like Mark Twain, say, or other classic satirists, he uses hyperbole. I'd suggest you read him a bit more thoughtfully to "get" the big picture of his style. That is what satirists do, after all; it is a well-known literary genre. So don't get so worked up about him being dishonest, when it isn't that at all.

Lastly: in this piece, Argento listed facts, named truly bad things that O'R has said and done. These are matters of the public record. I am confident that while I may agree with some of Mr. O'Reilly's ideas, his character, ethics and credibility, not to mention his tone, leaves much to be desired.

I'm glad you sent the piece to O'Reilly. I hope he knows that there are those of us here in Central PA that don't appreciate his nastiness and his bad attitude. Can't we have political conversation without his deriding and ugliness and mocking those with whom he disagrees? (You like to hear that stuff? Geesh.)

At least Argento has an excuse. He's a wacky satirist. Mr. O'R, as a pundit and op-ed commentator who is to be taken seriously, has no excuse. I would very much like to hear his reply to Argento's concerns.

Byron Borger

Many have a negative view of Mr O. Why? Because he tells it "like it is"? If Mr O has no excuse, then neither does Argento. Let's be fair here. Argento's excuse is he is a "zany satirist"? I like to think many in the midstate are above his leftist degrading of anything that is more "right". I've read his columns for a long time, and they are always the same. Point out all the "bad" of the right republican, and nothing bad of the left democrats, and it's sickening. I've gotten many pats on the backs after writing about his completely biased articles. So, apparently, many agree with me. When you're in journalism, if one doesn't have an excuse, then don't find excuses for others.

It may be an urban legend or false rumor, but I understand the average age of Billo's audience is in the low 70s. The implication to me is that they are less educated, less politically aware and are a distinct and declining minority of viewers at best.

Just the fact that O'Reilly is a nasty human being who lies, name-calls, and screams at his opponents to "shut up", and demands their microphone be turned off should be sufficient to dismiss his ravings. Oh, and wanting to deny equal rights to wide swaths of the American people, demonizing those who don't believe a certain (Christian) way, thinly-veiled racism...

It would seem you have swallowed all his bilge and are begging for more. Maybe you should offer him a falafel.

After hearing all the negative, I tuned into Mr. O'Reilly. On occasion, but rarely, he has cut off a guest. Rarely, when passionate, he yells (men in drag as nuns, taking communion, comes to mind.) On the whole, he presents both sides, is polite, and often concedes a point. He is always, always, always polite and respectful to leading politicians. His recent book, "Kids are Americans Too" is excellent. I bet none of his critics have read it. (I'm well below 70, well educated, and so are my kids, who love O'Reilly. However, age does not imply stupidity, as Mr. Spangler seems to think.) The bad press that Mr. O'Reilly receives is not representative of his show or him. Most who criticize have never watched his show, at least for long.

On the other hand, Mr. Argento does well when he writes serious stories, which he has. His satire seems to be material he got from Comedy Central. He's not factual and just spews out typical, well-known negatives about his enemies/victims. These are usually taken out of context and not explained, just spewed.

Mr. O'Reilly is a successful author with a leading news show. Mr. Argento is a two-bit journalist for a local newspaper. The people over 70 aren't the ones that made that happen.

You have gotten pats on the back because your friends are biased. What's more hypocritical than being "pro-life" and "pro-war" at the same time? Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, and Mark Foley really have solid family values, don't they. Deb Hosler, if you want to make a good point you should be sure that there is no counterpoint. Otherwise, you're not going to effectively pursuade anyone on the left to understand you. Just because you chose the wrong political party to represent (unrealistic, spiteful, and hypocritical), doesn't mean you have to take it out on Mike Argento!

1. Love him or hate him, Bill O'Reilly has a very impressive life history. It would be interesting to compare Argento's life experience to O'Reilly's!

2. Political commentators are first and foremost self-promoters. It is beyond me why anyone would take any of them too seriously and/or pay to hear them speak.

3. I suspect that the members of the Junior League will be a bit surprised to learn that the average age of their group is thought to be 70 something.

4. If you think about it, there is only one way to avoid reaching the age of 70!

I think commentators are there to entertain - that's how they make money. But they also serve a purpose, since most of us have forgotten how to think. We'd do well to educate ourselves and learn to discourse about issues. Instead of buying into all that commentators say, we should learn from them.

Roy, I find it interesting that Argento means money or silver in a foreign language.

Also, thanks for pointing out the stupidity of the "over 70" remark.

the subsistence of the labouring poor, or it must occasion some manner the discovery of a boy who wanted to save his own labour.

either ascended or descended. One of those boys, who loved to play with his into motion very different quantities of productive labour and augment,