THIS MODERN WORLD

A friend of mine forwards the article about which O’Reilly was whining, and provides some context about the paper. First, the context:

“East Valley” refers to its coverage area, a set of bizarrely different suburban enclaves east of Phoenix itself — Mormon Mesa, Boob-job Scottsdale, Pleasantville Chandler, etc — and when I lived there, it was owned by Thompsen, a famously tight-fisted company that paid reporters little more than fast-food workers. Nearly everyone I met who worked there was seriously demoralized, and the product itself was a pandering mess that sucked up to Mormon leaders in particular. In 2000 it was sold to Freedom Communications, the conservative-libertarian group based in Irvine (the OC Register is its flagship).

As for the actual article, which my friend dug up via Lexis (hence, no link), it’s a longish pre-Oscar rundown which only mentions O’Reilly in passing:

To say the least, the 2006 Oscar field will not be remembered as a paragon of populism. In terms of box office, all five best picture nominees together wouldn’t add up to one “Lord of the Rings” or “Saving Private Ryan.” The Johnny Cash biopic “Walk the Line” — a solid critical and financial success — failed to make the cut.

Commercial disadvantages or no, the nominees have generated robust storms of chatter and controversy in the media. Last week, Fox News pundit Bill O’Reilly blasted director Ang Lee’s limpid cowboy romance for “humanizing” homosexuality. After seeing “Munich,” Steven Spielberg’s Oscar-nominated tale of Israeli revenge killings in the wake of the massacre of Olympic athletes, author Jack Engelhard (“Indecent Proposal”) chided the Jewish filmmaker for being “no friend of Israel . . . no friend of truth.”

That’s it. That’s the only mention of O’Reilly’s name.

Note that the author doesn’t specifically mention whether he is quoting O’Reilly’s column, or something that O’Reilly said on either his nightly television program or his daily radio broadcast. (The quoted word “humanizing” does not appear in O’Reilly’s column.)

In conclusion: an obscure columnist in a small newspaper in suburban Phoenix mentions O’Reilly in passing — and O’Reilly devotes an entire segment of his show to denouncing the guy, cherry-picking his own quotes to do so.

Extraordinary.

That’s what the graphic behind Bill O’Reilly read tonight as he complained about the way in which a newspaper called the East Valley Tribune characterized a column of his (apparently, a twig does not fall that O’Reilly is unaware of, at least if it whispers unfavorably of him on its way to the forest floor)*:

In an attempt to present himself as an unfairly maligned paragon of tolerance, this is what Bill O’Reilly says he actually wrote:

And this is the somewhat more nuanced column that Bill O’Reilly actually did write:

The old American west was a place where men were men, and women were, well, in short supply. I mean, covering thousands of miles in a dusty covered wagon wasn’t exactly an enchanting experience for the ladies. Don’t even ask about the plumbing.

But the new American west is a bit different, at least according to the new widely praised film “Brokeback Mountain.” I haven’t seen the movie because the lead actors play bisexual shepherds and, please forgive me, that isn’t on top of my viewing wish list. I understand I’m a barbarian.

According to friends of mine who have seen “Brokeback,” the key scene takes place in a pup tent. Apparently, two shepherds “bond” in said tent. If I do see the movie, I know what will run through my mind during that scene: What would Clint and Lee and Eli have done, had they stumbled upon the tent? I believe gunfire might have been involved.

(snip)

These days, Hollywood considers itself not only a place of entertainment, but also a cultural trendsetter. There is no question that many showbiz types would like to banish any societal stigma associated with homosexuality. Thus, a mainstream movie that portrays gay conduct as nuanced and complicated, as “Brokeback” reportedly does, contributes to a more broadminded approach to homosexuality–a more accepting view.

So that’s what’s in play this year at the Academy Awards–a social and political statement. And that’s why Star Wars and Harry Potter and Narnia, the three largest grossing movies of the year, are not in the best picture running. Spectacular movies often make tons of money, but they do not advance any cause. Gone are the days when “Gone With the Wind”-type entertainment ruled the Hollywood day.

So how should we process the current Hollywood award process? Well, I don’t have a problem with it. Certainly, it is wrong that some gay Americans, especially teenagers, are made to suffer because of their predilections. Every American should be able to pursue happiness on an equal basis, including gays.

But I also think the entertainment industry should be up front in explaining what films it values and why it finds them especially worthy. Most Americans are not gonna see “Brokeback Mountain” because they don’t relate to the subject, and if Hollywood is now in the “culture-shaping business,” it should admit it.

So look for Oscar night to be a huge night for shepherds who roam the range in their own consensual way. Hollywood is making a statement and Americans should be geting the message loud and clear.

Ridiculous? You decide.

*Hi, Bill! Thanks for stopping by the site!

Good catch from Baxil. Apparently Bruce Tinsley was for conservatism before he was against it :

The “I’m really a libertarian” trend has been picking up steam lately among conservatives who want to seem reasonable in the face of undeniable corruption, but it should be pointed out that a real libertarian (assuming you can find one) wouldn’t spend half their time complaining about abortion, homosexuality, drug use, violent video games, etc. People who favor “small government” tend to do so because they want to be left alone, but conservatism has shown us time and time again that when push comes to shove, imposing regressive social values always trumps any professed love of limited government.

Even funnier than the popularity of bogus libertarianism is the pleas of “I’m conservative, but not a Republican” among wingnuts. For a crowd that prides itself on its toughness and resolve, it’s amazing to see how many of them are too cowardly to stand by the party they unquestionably support. This usually manifests itself in self-righteous odes to fiscal discipline with the chorus of “I didn’t leave them, they left me”, but anyone who would vote for a Republican after Ronald Reagan’s first term has no right to feign ignorance over the GOP’s irresponsible governance. Though they may try to absolve themselves of responsibility for the choices they make in the voting booth, anyone with a long record of supporting GOP candidates and bashing Democrats is a Republican in my book.

Or to put things another way, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck…

I don’t intend to turn this site into a Crooks & Liars style videofest — C&L already exists, and does the job admirably, so there is no reason to reinvent it. But occasionally I’d like to be able to post the odd exchange that I might happen to catch. Case in point: last week, Hannity & Colmes were looking at the case of the former Taliban spokesman who is now attending Yale. More on that here if you’re not familiar with the story. Short H&C version: Yale won’t let Uncle Sam on campus (in the person of military recruiters) but it’s inviting our enemies in. Hannity and Colmes were discussing the matter with a Yale alum and Army vet with the improbably Dickensian name of Flagg Youngblood. This clip begins with Colmes saying (predictably enough) that he’s not defending Yale for letting the former Taliban in. The reason I’m posting the clip comes at the very end.

Hannity: There’s nobody at Guantanamo that’s there for no good reason.

Colmes: That’s not what the Justice Department —

Hannity: Excuse me. (Pause.) Do you mind? (Pause.) Ah, there’s nobody at Guantanamo Bay that’s there for nothing.

(To see the video, click here. It’ll take a few seconds to load, just be patient.)

I could have just posted the transcript, but the thing that really struck me about this exchange gets lost in print. Basically, it’s the power dynamic. This has never been a show of equals, of course — as Al Franken famously pointed out in one of his books, the original working title of the show was Hannity and Liberal To Be Determined. But they used to at least make the pretense of it being an actual debate show, and not just the Harlem Globetrotters playing the Washington Generals night after night. But now, if Colmes brings up an unpleasant fact that goes contrary to the worldview that Hannity and the rest of the Fox news gang are pledged to support, he is simply told to shut up, in the way that the lord of the manor might dismissively deal with an annoying servant who has momentarily forgotten his place.

It just seems like an awfully sad way to make a living.

(Thanks to everyone who helped me figure out the tech side of this.)

Can anyone point me toward a decent tutorial in converting and posting video clips? I’m on a Mac, and I have the capability to burn DVDs off Tivo–I just don’t have any idea what to do with the DVD files once I get them to my computer. I’ve already been directed toward a program called “Streamclip,” but there’s definitely some intermediate step I’m just not seeing.

… thanks for now, got some good tips. Unfortunately the DVD burner apparently decided to give the pooch a good screw since the last time I used it, so I’m going to have to take this project one step at a time.