The Crap Factor - Week 4: 100%
O'Reilly came up with a pretty easy one this week, about the movie "Brokeback Mountain," and his statements are both comically ironic and deeply disturbing.
First, before moving on to the more important issue of O'Reilly's advocating of violence toward homosexuals, I will deal with the central issue of his column.
O'Reilly is very fond of trying to categorize large, extremely diverse groups of people as a single entity. He refers to "Hollywood" much in the same way that an ignorant, angst filled teenager refers to "the man." "Hollywood" is advocating tolerance toward homosexuals, and that since "Hollywood" is now in the "culture shaping business" (which he argues is demonstrated by the movie's nomination for the Academy Award for Best Picture) then "it should admit it."
How exactly does "Hollywood" go about admitting it? How does a large, politically diverse industry, which produced such liberal gems as "The Passion of the Christ" and "Annapolis," go about admitting that their ultimate goal is the undermining of O'Reilly's hateful, intolerant society? Well, I guess that the secret Hollywood cabal of ultra-liberals could just hold a press conference to admit their goals. You know who I am referring to - the handful of conspirators who actually make all decisions about what movies will be released, what movies will win awards, and what social trends are to be advocated for.
"Hollywood" is an industry, and like all industries, it follows the trends of society. The movie "Brokeback Mountain" would never be made, much less receive the adulation is has, unless it reflected society. Society is increasingly realizing that homosexuals are an oppressed minority that deserve equal rights, in the same way that African Americans, Latinos, and women deserve equal rights.
Now, on to the good-old-fashioned violent intolerance.
He starts off his column by saying that his favorite western movie ever is "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," and praises the "macho" heros of the film. Then two paragraphs later, he mentions that there would undoubtedly be gunfire involved if his heros were to come upon the two leads in "Brokeback Mountain" in the tent where they first had sex.
I don't know how the advocating of violence in this way could possibly be considered acceptable. Had O'Reilly seen "Brokeback Mountain" he would know that the central tragedy of the film involves precisely the bigoted, violent, anti-homosexual attitudes that O'Reilly is advocating. This is what makes it worthy of an Academy Award for Best Picture, unlike movies like "Star Wars" and "Harry Potter" and "The Chronicles of Narnia," which were O'Reilly's suggestions for movies that actually deserve the best picture nomination, based entirely on the amount of money they made at the box office.
Alas, advocating violence toward homosexuals is not quite enough to deserve a 100% crap rating. Being a violent bigot is certainly enough to disqualify his opinions from possessing any merit, however, the focus of this blog is not O'Reilly's hateful, closed-minded opinions, but rather the lies and contradictions in his arguments. To deserve this week's 100% crap rating, he had to contradict himself in the way that only a true conservative can: by going on to say that it is wrong for gays to suffer, and that every American should be able to pursue happiness, including gays. He just finished essentially advocating the shooting of homosexuals, then four paragraphs later goes on to say that homosexuals deserve equal rights. This is 100% crap.
First, before moving on to the more important issue of O'Reilly's advocating of violence toward homosexuals, I will deal with the central issue of his column.
O'Reilly is very fond of trying to categorize large, extremely diverse groups of people as a single entity. He refers to "Hollywood" much in the same way that an ignorant, angst filled teenager refers to "the man." "Hollywood" is advocating tolerance toward homosexuals, and that since "Hollywood" is now in the "culture shaping business" (which he argues is demonstrated by the movie's nomination for the Academy Award for Best Picture) then "it should admit it."
How exactly does "Hollywood" go about admitting it? How does a large, politically diverse industry, which produced such liberal gems as "The Passion of the Christ" and "Annapolis," go about admitting that their ultimate goal is the undermining of O'Reilly's hateful, intolerant society? Well, I guess that the secret Hollywood cabal of ultra-liberals could just hold a press conference to admit their goals. You know who I am referring to - the handful of conspirators who actually make all decisions about what movies will be released, what movies will win awards, and what social trends are to be advocated for.
"Hollywood" is an industry, and like all industries, it follows the trends of society. The movie "Brokeback Mountain" would never be made, much less receive the adulation is has, unless it reflected society. Society is increasingly realizing that homosexuals are an oppressed minority that deserve equal rights, in the same way that African Americans, Latinos, and women deserve equal rights.
Now, on to the good-old-fashioned violent intolerance.
He starts off his column by saying that his favorite western movie ever is "The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," and praises the "macho" heros of the film. Then two paragraphs later, he mentions that there would undoubtedly be gunfire involved if his heros were to come upon the two leads in "Brokeback Mountain" in the tent where they first had sex.
I don't know how the advocating of violence in this way could possibly be considered acceptable. Had O'Reilly seen "Brokeback Mountain" he would know that the central tragedy of the film involves precisely the bigoted, violent, anti-homosexual attitudes that O'Reilly is advocating. This is what makes it worthy of an Academy Award for Best Picture, unlike movies like "Star Wars" and "Harry Potter" and "The Chronicles of Narnia," which were O'Reilly's suggestions for movies that actually deserve the best picture nomination, based entirely on the amount of money they made at the box office.
Alas, advocating violence toward homosexuals is not quite enough to deserve a 100% crap rating. Being a violent bigot is certainly enough to disqualify his opinions from possessing any merit, however, the focus of this blog is not O'Reilly's hateful, closed-minded opinions, but rather the lies and contradictions in his arguments. To deserve this week's 100% crap rating, he had to contradict himself in the way that only a true conservative can: by going on to say that it is wrong for gays to suffer, and that every American should be able to pursue happiness, including gays. He just finished essentially advocating the shooting of homosexuals, then four paragraphs later goes on to say that homosexuals deserve equal rights. This is 100% crap.
posted by Immoral Majority at 7:15 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home