Bill O’Reilly is in favor of a public healthcare option.

Click this link to see the FOX News video:    OReilly Backs public option

I must admit though, the word “same” must be used very loosely. 

Let’s begin with each news site’s headlines. 

Fox News: “READY AND WILLING? U.N. Report Warns Iran Has Ability To Make Nukes”

MSNBC: “Ahmadinejad Refuses to Rule Out Weapons”

Ok, the basic story here is that there is new reason to believe Iran is potentially capable of making weapons. However, which of these headlines terrifies you to your very core? Clearly, Fox News is a big fan of the scare tactics. Score one for liberal media. 

Let’s continue on to the secondary top stories, shall we? 

FOX News: “Congress Turns on ACORN”  and “Exotic Travel on Taxpayer’s Dime”

Ok…blatantly catering to the conservative viewer…to be expected. We hate ACORN and Congress(unless they’re messing with ACORN). Both worth reporting. But are these really the top news stories of the day? After telling us that Iran might possibly be building nuclear weapons, the next most pressing issue is the status of a liberal organization tainted by a group of rogue members during the 2008 election?

Let’s see if the other side has anything better to report….

MSNBC: “Banks’ Tighter Lending Rules Not Likely to End Soon: Some analysts fear that lenders will become even more strict as government aid winds down” and “Housing Construction hits highest in 9 months.” 

Hmm….interesting. Exact same level of catering to a perceived(?) viewership, but using completely different stories! (note that the Lenders headline makes you wish the government would continue aiding banks indefinitely, and that the Housing Construction story may be the only good piece of economic news in recent weeks) I don’t even see each site’s secondary stories on the other site’s news pages at all, let alone near the top! Is news that doesn’t fit our particular political opinions not valuable??

No wonder viewers for each station are thought to have skewed views of reality! They’re only being told half the story! Should this be allowed? Should news stations be forced to report the same top stories based upon each story’s relevance to society? If so, who decides which stories are relevant? And then, who reports the stories deemed irrelevant? 

Thought for the day: Are blatantly biased news stations taking on the much-needed task of reporting stories that would otherwise fall through the cracks?

So just how biased ARE these two news stations? Has anyone ever watched both? What type of people actually watch each station? 

I mean….both stations are reporting the exact same stories…aren’t they? So how much brainwashing can they really be doing without literally making up their headlines?

Ladies and Gentlemen, my first quest. 

I am going to compare the two fringes of cable news against one another, with no end goal in mind, just to see what comes up.

I must say that my first 5 minutes of research have proved very interesting. Fascinatingly enough, it appears that the only shared story on the two stations’ websites’ “top news” pages today is the death of Patrick Swayze. 

FOX seems to be living up to its stereotypes by focusing on Congress’ freeze of ACORN’s housing funds and wondering whether the Obama White House is attempting to downplay the conservative voice in politics. 

MSNBC also appears to be playing to its stereotypes, with a top story detailing President Obama’s stern comments toward Wall Street. 

The first 5 minutes have led me to believe this is going to be a very interesting journey.

Is it constitutional to place regulations on an activity against which opponents literally do not have a single non-religious argument? No.

Even if we were to overlook the obvious religious preference necessary for legal discrimination against homosexuals, is there a rational way to explain away the obvious discrimination required for such regulations? No.

Well…unless you argue that homosexuality is a choice. or even a preventable outcome of certain environments…a corner in which many an anti-gay rights debater has found themselves. Seems a logical path to take. Thus far no scientific proof to the contrary. Technically, the gay rights activist can’t conclusively  prove those claims wrong. Unless, of course, they have met and spoken with gay people (lack of doing so appears to be a major cause of most anti-gay rights opinions). Anyone who has ever taken the time to listen to most every gay person’s “coming out” story is bombarded with endless proof that nothing less than genetic makeup or other uncontrollable factors can be contributing to differing sexual preferences.

I, for example, have a friend, “Andrew,” who is the third child in an intensely conservative christian family. His elder brother is as stereotypically straight as they come, his sister is as well, and both of his happily married parents provided the love, attention, and good Christian background that is often said to be the breeding ground of nice straight children. So why is Andrew dating another man? Where is the person who will look me in the eye and say it is logical to assume that Andrew risked his entire family life and the love of his parents to tell them he was something of which he knew for absolute fact they disapproved, if his announcement was one of something he had chosen? 

In all actuality, my friend is one of the luckier ones. His parents took his coming out much better than expected and, though they still do not approve or understand, have decided they love him enough to live with his deviation from their perceived norm. I have spoken with quite a few other people (three come to mind automatically) who went through the same traumatic ordeal of coming out to loved ones only to end up estranged from one or both parents and, more often than not, entire families. Where is the logic in the argument that so many people would risk their previously happy home lives to divulge a secret stemming from a choice? Would they not choose to continue living in harmony with their families if that were an option? Taking the questions ever farther, why do there seem to be so many gay people faced with potential estrangement from loved ones if they share their true identities? Doesn’t that mean that these people have all been raised in homes that do not approve of homosexuality, and therefore obviously did not raise their children in manners that would encourage it? If the argument that environment creates homosexuality were accurate, then we would not hear constant stories of traumatic “coming out” tales and the agonizing decisions to share the truth in the first place. Coming out would be easy! The only people doing it would have been raised in hippie liberal homes or come from horribly broken families dealing with far more pressing issues than whether or not their child was gay. All evidence points to the contrary, and all logic begs that, if you happen to find yourself debating against gay rights and need a way out, you find somewhere else in which to crouch and hide. This corner has already been swept.