I know it's cheap to post content from other sites, but this is priceless. Al Franken invited Joseph Minton and Tom Breuer to his show. They are the authors of Sweet Jesus I Hate Bill O'Reilly. The three discussed the many ways Bill manages to embarrass himself. Al provoked lively discussion by playing clips from Bill's show. Some topics include:

Defamation of Character

Al: One of the ugliest lies is about Jeremy Glick, who lost his father in 9/11. And he keeps saying that Jeremy Glick said on the show- which he didn't- that Bush I and Bush II orchestrated 9/11.

Tom or Joe: There's a chapter in the book where we actually line by line go through the entire interview and write what Bill said, what Jeremy said, and then what was happening in Bill's head. And it's three totally different things.

Fake Sources

Al: At this point Canada was giving sanctuary to some of our deserters. And he was threatening that the O'Reilly Factor would boycott Canada, our largest trading partner.

Tom or Joe: And wreak havoc in the way his previous boycott had wreaked havoc on France.

Al: Which it hadn't. By the way, once he started his boycott of France, imports from France went up.

Bill: If you start to undermine our war against terrorists then Americans are going to take action. Are you willing to accept that boycott which will hurt your economy drastically?

Canadian Journalist: I don't think for a moment such a boycott would take place because we are your biggest trading partner.

Bill: No it will take place. In France they've lost billions of dollars according to the Paris Business Review.

Canadian Journalist: I think that's nonsense.

Al: OK now, there is no Paris Business Review... He does this thing all the time, which is "Are you familiar with the thing I just made up?"

Revisionist History

Bill: Although if France had sided with us Saddam would have backed off, the weapons inspectors would have been in, and there wouldn't have been a war. That's true.

Tom or Joe: Yeah, as that's black and white fact to him. In his head that is fact. That is so scary.

Al: The fact to him is that the weapons inspectors never went in. Even though the weapons inspectors... went in. In November. We told them finally to get out because we're going to be bombing. So the weapons inspectors were there from November 18th, 2002. And he says this repeatedly!

Fake Credentials

Bill: I tell you what. I've been in combat. I've seen it. I've been close to it. And if my unit is in danger and I've got a captured guy. And the guy knows where the enemy is. And I'm looking him in the eye. The guy better tell me. That's all I'm going to tell you. If it's life or death... he's going first.

Caller: Hey Bill. Bill, first things first. You just said that you've been in combat but you've never been in the military have you?

Bill: No I have not.

Caller: Why did you say you've been in combat?

Bill: What do I say that Roger? Because I was in the middle of a couple of firefights in South and Central America.

Caller: But you were a media guy.

Bill: Yeah. A media guy with a pen, not a gun. And people were shooting at me, Roger.

Caller: 'Cause people might think that you actually were in the military.

Bill: No. We don't want to mislead anybody. But I've made it quite clear, quite clear in many, many circumstances.

Caller: Is that fair and balanced?

Bill: Yeah. Hey listen Roger, you know what? You can take your little fair and balanced snip remark and shove it. You're not getting on this air. You, Mr. macho man, would have never come close to anything that I've done down where I've been. So take a walk, and... enough said.

Tom or Joe: He knows nothing about Roger. Roger could have no legs from Vietnam. I mean he has absolutely no idea who Roger is. It's the most insane thing to take that approach.

Fact Checking

Al: Here he's talking about the Factor staff. And how devoted he is to getting his facts right.

Bill: Every day the Factor staff, radio and television, comes to me with stories. We have pitch meetings. And I say, "Prove it." They got to prove it to me. And it may be a story I really like. And I go, "OK, prove it." And we kill eight out of ten stories because it's not there. Which is why in eight and a half years I've never had to retract a story on either radio or television. Never had to retract one.

Al: What kind of staff does he have that eight out of the ten stories they bring him don't check out?

Tom or Joe: You've got to fire those people. You don't keep them on.

Bad Writing

[You've got to hear this. Bill's attempt at salacious fiction is as funny as it is bad. His reading of his own writing makes it even more humorous.]

Tom or Joe: He reads it like a talking points memo!

[An e-mail conversation with a colleague.]

What are they smoking?
http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/articles/060417fa_fact

[My comments.]

I heard about this story this morning. Frightening.

[My colleague's comments.]

What do you think North Korea would do if this happened? They are third on the list of the "Axis of Evil." That Kim Jon ??? would probably join Iran in the fight. Maybe just my concern but what would I know, I'm not a government "expert." I think if we pull the same shit to start a war that we did in Iraq it's on! World War III. Those 1.2 billion Muslims plus North Korea vs. the U.S. and the "collision of the willing." Then it’s a good opportunity for China to invade Taiwan since we'll be a little busy.

[My comments.]

I agree. Brent Scowcroft and other advisers of George W's father warned about dire consequences of invading and occupying a Muslim country in a preemptive war. What can we expect our army to do if a real global emergency strikes? The army is bogged down in Iraq. George W. was too busy fighting an Oedipal duel with his father to think through the consequences of this war.

[My colleague's comments.]

Bush is just looking for a messianic legacy to his presidency. It's really scary to think that these guys in power have such grandiose world objectives.

[My comments.]

Our nation voted for this man twice because he's such a swell guy.

I think Bush is used to operating in a world of Bible study groups. Where the message is very uplifting. No one ever challenges anyone else because they all believe the same truths before joining the group. I think this atmosphere has created an illusion in George W's head that all of humanity thinks his way. That the rest of the world will see the noble purpose in all his decisions. I don't think George W. has ever had to learn how to discuss, debate, argue through ideas to see their different interpretations and limitations.

I remember my father telling me that on September 12th, 2001, he spent time in his high school class talking with his students about what had happened the day before. I remember him telling me that his students had no idea how hated we Americans are in some parts of the world. They assumed that everyone must like us because of our freedoms, because we fought on the correct side of WWII, etc. I think George W. suffers from the same ignorance.

I read something interesting a while back in The Best and the Brightest, a book about the Vietnam War. I copied it down:

I don't think George W. has any inkling of what this means. He's led too sheltered a life to understand it. Money and evangelic faith in humanity's malleability blinded him to warning signs from history and culture. I'm sure he's perplexed as to why the Muslims of Iraq are not grateful for the democracy we've given them. He's placed our young soldiers into this same confusing situation where they must try to help a people that don't want help and are not grateful for it. Abu Ghraib was bound to occur.

[An e-mail to friends who have already seen the film.]

I've been on a movie binge lately. I just finished watching Crash. I didn't like it. It felt like something [our college professors] would make us watch in freshman preceptorial.

The characters in the film preached at the audience. They lectured us on how to interpret the racial undertones in everyday encounters. I felt like I was watching a television show that had been stretched into a two hour film. I don't watch much TV but I have noticed how characters in many of the prime time dramas tend to lecture the audience, editorialize, speak plot in the interest of advancing the story in limited time. Crash had the same feel. I did not find the dialogue believable.

I thought the acting was good. I thought the actors did the best they could with, in my opinion, poor writing. One scene I found really outlandish was when Anthony brings the Chinese man's delivery truck into the chop shop. When he opens the door to find a huddled mass of Chinese aliens I said "Come on!" I literally said it out loud. Come on!

I thought "How can this be the best film of the year?" I remember Jack Nicholson's reaction at the Oscars. He gave a look, it seemed, of surprise when opening the envelope and declaring Crash the best picture. I hadn't seen any of the nominated films at that point so I did not want to read too much into his reaction. But I think I understand it now. I've seen all the other nominated films except Munich and I think they're all better. Good Night and Good Luck is preachy too, but it's a small film without any grandiose message like Crash.

What I can't figure out about Crash is why every major character in the film is both victim and villain except for Daniel, the locksmith. What is the significance of that? Why does every other character have two sides? The film goes out of its way to preach this duality of saint and sinner. Officer Ryan is a bigot and a hero who pulls traffic victims (not just any victim) from burning cars. His partner is a diffuser of potentially disastrous situations and a murderer. Cameron is a victim of racial profiling and a gun wielding thug. Farhad is a victim of anti-Arab discrimination and a vengeance killer. Anthony steals cars and frees Chinese. And yet one character is sinless. The locksmith is an island of calm decency in a storm of racial prejudice. Is this some contrived metaphor about crossing through a door? Seems like really sloppy writing to me.

Well, that's my take. Like always I have strong opinions. I find it fun to discuss movies, pro or con.

I had read a few reviews online that mentioned similarities between Brokeback Mountain and The Last Picture Show in how the two films depict desolate rural towns. I had added The Last Picture Show to my NetFlix queue months ago. After reading the reviews online I moved it to the top of my list.

I watched the film last night. I must say it's one of the finest I've ever seen. In one of those strange moments of illumination made possible by the Internet I recognized more connections between the two films than scenes of desolate rural life. Recalling names I had encountered earlier while browsing IMDB I realized during the closing credits of The Last Picture Show that Larry McMurtry, whose name I saw credited for writing the novel and screenplay of the film just finished, had also written the screenplay for Brokeback Mountain. In addition, Randy Quaid plays small roles in both films.

Why do I like The Last Picture Show so much? I could write a lengthy review but instead I'll point you to the film clip above. Cybill Shepherd plays Jacy Farrow, an incorrigible flirt. Good God she's hot.

I watched Brokeback Mountain on Wednesday. It is not as gay a film as you may expect. I thought that Capote was gayer, in that boorish sense of the word, as it focused on an effeminate, bon vivant writer. Brokeback Mountain is really a film about rural life. It focuses on emotions, not politics. It is not so different from most Westerns as it exhibits the male supression of emotion for the greater social need. I thought it was excellent.

After watching the film, as I'm wont to do, I read comments on IMDB and NetFlix. I was amused by a number of dissatified viewers who protested that the film would not be such a big deal if the lead characters were not gay. Take away the gay cowboys, they say, and the film wouldn't be so highly praised.

Well, it's good to know that one can find people willing to point out the obvious. Often when writing for this site I find myself struggling with nuanced analysis, contradictory thoughts and interpretations. It's comforting to know that I can rely on these Internet critics to keep me from losing sight of the main points.

This just shows, the Internet critics continue, Hollywood's liberal agenda. The only reason Brokeback Mountain is getting so much press is because it furthers the gay agenda.

That's right Einstein, very good. That's the same reason In The Heat of the Night got so much press. It also furthered a liberal agenda, civil rights. That is exactly why some of us think Brokeback Mountain is an excellent film. It displays the damage done to people left behind by the status quo agenda. Some of us believe that examining this kind of wreckage is the penultimate duty of art. Do you expect the artists who made this film to apologize for asking their audience to consider a more liberal view of the matter? Do you expect them to be ashamed that their film helps advance a liberal agenda? Don't hold your breath for an apology. The wheels of time will not stop on your account.

I relate this episode simply to clarify that while Brokeback Mountain avoids political dialectic, focusing on emotions rather than politics, it is most certainly a highly political film. It is so because its subject matter has been so politicized in recent years.

So let us not shy away from the politics. I have discussed the issue of gay marriage in an earlier blog: Gay Marriage Is A Threat To Male Insecurity.

Al Franken found some humor in the gay marriage issue on his Thursday show: