But can't you agree, at least in spirit, that a certain level of disdain for television and Hollywood is justified, or that at the very least, the impulse is valid, whether you agree with it or not? A lot of crap comes out of these systems.

Sure, Hollywood and TV churn out a lot of crap, but so does the "indie" movie industry. So does the book market, comics, music, etc...

Moreover, I don't see why O'Hehir should be expected to prove that he's ... what? fair and balanced? I don't know ... by rubber stamping a blockbuster every now and then.

He shouldn't be, he can review indie movies all day long for all I care and since that's what he loves, that's probably what he should stick to. If he's going to venture out of his comfort zone he should at least make the effort to familiarize himself with his subject. His review of the Star Trek TV series read like something written by someone who'd not only never seen an episode, but who only knew of it through critical essays penned by college sophomores. And in this review, he simply states Hitchcock is a misogynyst, no evidence or examples. It is as though he's stating it 'cause it is expected from "serious" critics.

If he's responding to my criticisms in his post in the letters column, he simply assumes I haven't bothered to check his other work and that I have "concocted a ludicrous caricature of who I am and what I like". I'm going by his articles on Salon, if anyone has "concocted a ludicrous caricature" of Andrew O'Hehir, it is him through those articles. It is an attempt to brush off any criticisms without having to address them.

If he doesn't want to review "mainstream" works, then don't! Instead, we get half-assed "reviews" of things outside his realm of interest and he attempts to distance himself from these attempts with, in his words "my perhaps weak efforts to crack jokes at my own expense". When he's actually interested in a movie or a genre, he can be a decent reviewer. I'm not the one who thinks he needs to review mainstream stuff, either his editors do or he does. I wish he'd stay away from it altogether unless he's going to approach it with an open mind.

In his sarcastic reply, he is right that crap like American Idol gets over-covered, there are indeed tons of other sources for coverage of the media he disdains, so why does he feel compelled to cover it? And once compelled, why doesn't he bother to do a decent job of it? He puts in the effort for the art-house stuff and we get decent articles out of it.

It doesn't bother me, because the person has made no effort to look at my track record and has concocted a ludicrous caricature of who I am and what I like.

If this were true, it'd simply mirror your article on the original Star Trek series.

We waterboarded 3 (three)

wrong.

ACORN and 270 affiliated organizations are all addressed in a small old funeral home in New Orleans all Federal funds that ACORN requests nationwide are funneled to this address and nobody knows where it goes from there

Wrong.

The current 900 page energy bill that Democrats have hired a speed reader for to again shove something through congress before anyone has a chance to read or debate.

Wrong

Three terrorist waterboarded get volumes of outrage yet hardly a word for more serious crimes that deny the rights of millions of Americans and take advantage of and hurt thousands of minorities

Wrong.

I'd go into detail, but it'd take volumes. It'll be a shocking day when you're right about something.

You're less coherant with every post. You're babbling on about "the left" and the "left" that you're describing only exists in your fevered imagination.

You'll believe any lie the Right feeds you, huh?

Everyone asked in this poll identified as a Republican on year ago.

But I'll freely admit that watching a coordinated, devastating attack on our country from an underground bunker at the White House can affect how you view your responsibilities."

So witnessing your failure to fulfill your responsibilities affects how you view your responsibilities? Who would have thought?

The terrorist crime and the deaths of well over 3,000 people on that day are the direct result of Cheney and Bush ignoring their responsibilities. Everything that they've done since is an attempt to deny that reality.