Bill O'Reilly is at it again
You'd think Bill O'Reilly and his goons would have learned something after the disaster of a lawsuit against Al Franken. But no, the company that syndicates O'Reilly's column, is trying to bully a weblog into removing links to an O'Reilly column, under the guise of copyright violation. That's right: Creators Syndicate has sent a cease and desist letter to Newshounds for merely linking to this column.
Inspired by this brouhaha, we were going to suggest that bloggers out there to find an O'Reilly column you really, really hate and link to it. But apparently Creators Synidicate has been so successful in keeping O'Reilly's past columns offline (they're available only to paid subscribers from O'Reilly's website) that we can't find many. So here's the offending link again. Enjoy.
Posted by carrie on 03/04/2005 | Permalink
Creators Synidicate has been so successful in keeping O'Reilly's past columns offline
He hides them so I can't come across them accidentally? Win-win!
Posted by: charles | Mar 4, 2005 10:47:59 AM
When linking to one of the articles, remember to use a descriptive phrase like "offending link" so Google will categorize it correctly. I personally used "absolutely idiotic article" for my link.
Posted by: Chris | Mar 4, 2005 12:21:44 PM
Actually, NewsHounds reproduced the column in full. That's what they had a problem with.
Posted by: Ryan | Mar 4, 2005 1:20:51 PM
Ryan, did you read the full article? NewsHounds reprinted the column in full initially but took it down as soon as Creators Syndicate contacted them and replaced it with a link. Creators Syndicat then sent a cease and desist to remove the link.
Posted by: carrie | Mar 4, 2005 1:25:49 PM
Here's something that's been ticking me off for a while about the right's attack on Buster -- the assumption that teaching kids tolerance toward homosexuals is equivalent to going into detail about homosexual sex:
O'Reilly says: "Many Americans believe that little kids should have a childhood and not be subjected to any kind of sexuality. I don't want to be offensive here, but who in their right mind wants to explain Norma and Barbara's lifestyle to their 4-year-old?"
Well, nobody wants to explain the kind of details O'Reilly is suggesting -- duh. Nor does anyone really want to explain all the details of the lifestyle of a *heterosexual* married couple to a 4-year-old. One is not more inherently sexual than the other. And as amazing as it would be to see someone on a children's show say "You see, Buster, even though neither of these two women has a penis, they are still able to sexually pleasure each other," that is so not going to happen. (And like a 4-year-old even cares about examining this stuff anyway; kids take everything as status quo at that age. Single mom? Two moms? Whatever. Where are the toys?)
Really, it's incredibly offensive that O'Reilly and his ilk can't conceive of homosexuals as having any characteristics besides the kind of sex they have. It must be horrible for them, being forced to think about all that gay sex every time they see a homosexual, since the concept disturbs them so.
Posted by: Francis | Mar 4, 2005 4:48:01 PM
im starting some fundraising so we can all see Bill's Full Column. I want access. To the columns and to the picture essays on his site. Though I have to say, I'm more offended by the content than the lawsuit. It takes a certain kind of moron to blame failure in the war on terror on the ACLU. And Francis, I totally agree -- most kids would have never noticed the two moms. The kids who do notice it are likely tipped off by their fear mongering parents, screaming about PBS.
Posted by: Beth | Mar 4, 2005 4:50:50 PM
maybe it should become the top Google result for 'felafel'
Posted by: xian | Mar 4, 2005 5:40:41 PM
"Here's something that's been ticking me off for a while about the right's attack on Buster -- the assumption that teaching kids tolerance toward homosexuals is equivalent to going into detail about homosexual sex"
Battling assumptions with assumptions, now that's a good game. Bound to lead somewhere interesting . . .
Kids that age are irrepressibly curious, and you can't always just turn them off when you feel like they've heard enough. Where would that lesson end? What's the practical difference between a boundary outside the classroom and another inside? Teaching tolerance of sexual preference with little or no context (and questionable ability among the kids to understand such complex matters) is either a waste of time or an exercise in self-gratification. What's the payoff, from the kid's point of view?
Sure it's a tender topic. Yes people overreact. But it's not about the Puritans victimizing the oppressed, it's a reasonable debate about what's best for kids. I think we can all agree that teaching them how to think is more important than teaching them what to think. At that age, and with that topic, you're kind of stuck with doing the latter.
Posted by: Uncle Mikey | Mar 4, 2005 6:25:01 PM
Teaching tolerance of others is accomplished by example as much as anything else. In the case of the TV show derided by O'Reilly, et al., tolerance simply meant acceptance of the nontraditional family without making a big deal out of it. As reported online by CNN (http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/TV/02/15/apontv.buster.busted.ap/):
[The controversial episode], filmed last March, centers on youngsters. But glimpsed as well are the parents, two couples who seem altogether unremarkable. Except they're all women.
This detail scarcely escapes Buster's notice. When one little girl refers to her mother and stepmother, Buster remarks, "That's a lot of moms!"
Nothing more on the subject is said or done, however. And no one breathes the L Word.
This is controversial how? What O'Reilly is apparently saying is that even *acknowledging the existence* of a family with two mothers -- without making a point of saying that it's morally wrong or something -- is just not appropriate for kids.
Posted by: Francis | Mar 4, 2005 7:01:38 PM
What Francis said.
The kid says: "Why does little Bobby have two Mommies, and I have a Mommy and a Daddy?"
Mom says: "Well, some children have two Mommies. Some children have a Mommy and Daddy. Some children have two Daddies."
Is that so hard?
It would be far more traumatic to explain to a child why some children have only ONE Mommy, or ONE Daddy. Or a Mommy, and/or Daddy, and/or stepparents. But no reasonable person would suggest today that divorced or widowed parents should not be portrayed on television.
Posted by: Mitch Wagner | Mar 4, 2005 8:33:52 PM
"But it's not about the Puritans victimizing the oppressed, it's a reasonable debate about what's best for kids."
You could start by thinking of what's best for the kids who actually do have two moms. The ones I know would sure have an easier life if people were able to deal with their situation with equanimity and politeness, rather than confusion, shock, or rudeness.
If you'd like to indocrinate your kids about how they should live, that's certainly your business. But that's no reason to bias them against other people for how they live. You may not want your children to be garbagemen or rock stars, either, but that's no reason to pretend that garbagemen and their families don't exist, or teach bias against guitar players.
Posted by: William | Mar 4, 2005 9:15:42 PM
Compared to Bill O'Rielly's work in general, this particular column is "offending" ? Because....?
It's a pretty harmless column, hardly worth the effort.
Posted by: Michael Dougan | Mar 5, 2005 4:23:26 AM
When linking to one of the articles, remember to use a descriptive phrase like "offending link" so Google will categorize it correctly. I personally used "absolutely idiotic article" for my link
Posted by: Models Gardens | May 8, 2005 5:41:50 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.