Ailes, O’Reilly and Trump

The Dallas Morning News - - FROM THE FRONT PAGE -

Re: “O’Reilly cut by Fox News — Sex al­le­ga­tions prove the un­do­ing for ca­ble chan­nel’s top star,” Thurs­day news story.

Former Fox News chief Roger Ailes, Bill O’Reilly and Don­ald Trump all have in com­mon the use of power to sex­u­ally ex­ploit women. We are your moth­ers, sis­ters and wives and de­serve men who treat women with re­spect.

O’Reilly was pic­tured on his va­ca­tion shak­ing hands with the pope. He came home to a pink slip. It took way too long to fire this guy.

Meg Hillert, Univer­sity Park

Blame every­one at Fox News

Bill O’Reilly, the head­liner for the Fox News Chan­nel, has to leave his show, which has led ca­ble news for years. This is be­cause of al­le­ga­tions of sex­ual ha­rass­ment and com­plaints of foul lan­guage and “im­proper con­duct.”

There are re­ports that the net­work has paid sev­eral mil­lion dol­lars in set­tle­ments. If O’Reilly has in­deed done th­ese things, it’s a shame. He has lost his rep­u­ta­tion, wit­nessed by one and all, in­clud­ing his fam­ily.

I am not able to ac­cuse nor de­fend him. All I know is what I see and hear from him on his show. But I must point out that it doesn’t help that the women pa­raded on this net­work dress like women of the evening (a del­i­cate way of putting it). Pro­duc­ers and own­ers must be aware of this.

One par­tic­u­lar show comes to mind — Out­num­bered. It’s hosted by one man and four women who are dressed to the nines, with skirts climb­ing up al­most re­veal­ing way too much. To make mat­ters worse, the par­tic­i­pants are sit­ting on a raised plat­form, caus­ing a some­times re­veal­ing cam­era an­gle. This seems in­ten­tional. Sort of like wav­ing a bot­tle in front of an al­co­holic. I blame the whole bunch of ’em. Bob Dod­son, Irv­ing

Can­di­dates lack ex­pe­ri­ence

Irv­ing may­oral can­di­date Rick Stopfer and I have not al­ways agreed on is­sues, but at least we have been able to talk about them over the years. My big­gest con­cern about his op­po­nents is that two of them have only lived in Irv­ing three years and none has served on a board or com­mis­sion in a city of over 225,000 cit­i­zens. The mayor’s of­fice should not be on­the-job train­ing.

I sug­gest to the three that they ap­ply for a po­si­tion on a board or com­mis­sion and run for of­fice again af­ter that.

Tom Madrzykowski, Irv­ing

Vote for the new­com­ers

Re: “Vote for the real Plano,” by Deb­bie O’Reilly, Sat­ur­day Letters.

O’Reilly thinks the Plano equal rights or­di­nance is a re­quire­ment. We al­ready have the Con­sti­tu­tion and civil rights amend­ments that pro­vide all the le­gal re­course for any­thing cov­ered by the or­di­nance.

How­ever, the big­gest rea­son to vote for Lily Bao and other new­com­ers and not the cur­rent cronies at City Hall is to make Plano’s gov­ern­ment re­spon­sive to the cit­i­zens.

Plano Fu­ture Or­ga­ni­za­tion legally col­lected and filed a pe­ti­tion against Plano’s mas­sive apart­ment build, known as the Plano To­mor­row Plan. The city has spent hundreds of thou­sands of dol­lars to fight its own cit­i­zens in stop­ping the Plano To­mor­row Plan. But the city re­cently lost its ap­peal.

Why wouldn’t Plano’s mayor bring the Plano To­mor­row Plan to a vote, which was Plano Fu­ture Or­ga­ni­za­tion’s goal? Shouldn’t Plano cit­i­zens have been able to vote on that plan, a plan that has al­ready over­crowded some Plano schools; added to the al­ready over­crowded streets, parks and recre­ational fa­cil­i­ties; and in­creased the tax bur­den in fu­ture years to sup­port more and more in­fra­struc­ture, po­lice and fire pro­tec­tion as­sets?

A vote for Lily Bao will bring Plano’s gov­ern­ment back to the cit­i­zens, where it should have been all along. Garry Beckham, Plano

Would you host a town hall?

Re: “Marchant avoids con­stituents,” by Ruth Klein, “… And is run­ning scared,” by Stephen McCluer, Tues­day Letters, and “Cornyn should hold town halls — Se­na­tor has an obli­ga­tion to meet face to face with his con­stituents, says Jasi Baker,” Tues­day View­points.

In th­ese two letters and View­points col­umn on the sub­ject of town hall meet­ings with elected of­fi­cials, all three writ­ers wanted to know why th­ese meet­ings were not be­ing held. I know why.

Town hall meet­ings used to be places where con­stituents could go to meet their rep­re­sen­ta­tives and ask them ques­tions. Re­cently, they have be­come ral­lies for the op­po­si­tion. There may be some bona fide con­stituents present, but mostly the crowds have been com­posed of an­gry, shout­ing de­mon­stra­tors car­ry­ing neg­a­tive signs.

The few leg­is­la­tors who have braved host­ing town hall meet­ings have been shouted down as soon as they tried to speak. The crowds were not only rude, but some­times ag­gres­sive with push­ing and shov­ing. Con­stituents who came to sup­port the of­fi­cial or ask a ques­tion re­ceived the same treat­ment as the host.

The bot­tom line is that noth­ing pro­duc­tive came out of th­ese events. Se­ri­ously, would you like to host one of th­ese meet­ings?

Diane Church, Plano

‘I’ll re­mem­ber that in 2018’

As the con­tro­ver­sies swirl around town hall meet­ings, I’d like to share my story. A group of friends had de­cided to talk with our U.S. rep­re­sen­ta­tive [Sam Johnson] and our two U.S. sen­a­tors [John Cornyn and Ted Cruz] about three top­ics that were im­por­tant to us: health care, im­mi­gra­tion and So­cial Se­cu­rity. We be­gan our quest to meet them in early Fe­bru­ary.

We con­tacted all three through their web­sites. None hold town hall meet­ings. We spoke with a Johnson staffer at a mo­bile of­fice event. The talk was cor­dial but the staffer could pro­vide no in­sight into his views on our three is­sues.

We spoke with the re­gional di­rec­tor of Cornyn’s Dal­las of­fice. He, too, was cor­dial and pro­vided a bet­ter idea on where Cornyn stood on the three is­sues.

Our at­tempt to con­tact Cruz led to the re­gional di­rec­tor of his Dal­las of­fice. Af­ter more than six weeks and mul­ti­ple at­tempts to con­tact him, I have re­ceived no re­sponse. I must con­clude that Cruz and-or his staff have no in­ter­est in the opin­ions of his con­stituents. I’ll re­mem­ber that in 2018.

Cather­ine Man­garelli, Fairview

Give me the Windy City

Re: “Flee­ing Chicago,” by Bar­bara Kennedy, Sun­day Letters.

I wish I could say I was sur­prised by Kennedy’s com­ment when she said, “I can un­der­stand why pas­sen­gers on United Flight 3411 didn’t want to give up their seats … they wanted to get out of Chicago,” but I wasn’t. Ig­no­rance and my­opia have ceased to sur­prise.

If Ms. Kennedy has ever been to this great Amer­i­can city, she cer­tainly hasn’t seen the same one I and many others know and love. Its beau­ti­ful lake­front (think about a real Trin­ity River green space, not just con­sul­tants’ dreams); its friendly, gen­uine, salt-of-theearth Mid­west­ern peo­ple (think be­yond air­port po­lice or taxi­cab driv­ers); its world-class mu­seum dis­trict; its un­flag­ging ac­cep­tance of out­siders; and much more.

Give me the Windy City any day. Truth be told: I’ve met some won­der­ful, loving and kind peo­ple in Texas. Truth be told: If Ms. Kennedy were to con­de­scend to in­vest some time in the Mid­west, she’d find the same.

Robert Green­field, Irv­ing


Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.