First off, in order to place her comments in context, everyone should really read her piece in the Guardian, not just the excerpts printed above. Here's a link:
http://books.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,,1727309,00.html

That said, let me respond briefly to the points made above:

>1) This makes her look like quite the sore loser. Even if she
>thinks she was robbed, act like a professional for fuck's
>sake. I don't hear word one from Bennett Miller or Steven
>Spielberg, or anyone associated with either production. Why?
>Because they sucked it up, even though deep down I'm sure they
>too think their film was superior.

I disagree. I found her tone refreshingly truthful - artists, whether they're writers, directors, whatever, are going to be emotionally invested in their work. Everyone wants to get recognized for their work, and all the nominees who lost probably felt something similar to what Proulx is expressing in her piece. The article is written as a subjective, first hand account from somebody who didn't win an Oscar they were expecting, and I think she conveys her frustration effectively. If she was being gracious and tactful, the article wouldn't work - its about her point of view, not making nice with the winners.

>2) Is she suggesting Hollywood is anti-gay? Isn't Los Angeles
>one of those "queer cities" people in Middle America refer to
>when talking about homosexuals and evil liberals and what not?
>Now LA is off that list? So it's just New York and San
>Francisco?

I've read other critics who shared this perspective, and offered some good evidence to back it up. In particular, they brought up the fact that there has NEVER been an openly gay movie star in Hollywood. While Hollywood does make movies dealing with gay themes, they usually employ straight actors, as in Brokeback. Typically, serious movies about gay themes are the territory of independent films, as Hollywood studios have traditionally shied away from the topic. I don't know if I really buy the notion that Brokeback lost because Academy members were scared of the gay theme, but Proulx isn't the first one to express the thought.

>3) Is she also suggesting that racism isn't a relevant issue
>anymore? Regardless of what you think about Crash and how Paul
>Haggis tackled the issue (I really don't want to reopen that
>can of worms), surely you'd admit a film dealing with that
>topic isn't archaic. Is racism no longer a pertinent part of
>North American culture?

You make a valid point here. I agree that she is implying that racism is an outdated topic, and in this respect, she's dead wrong. While I agree with Proulx that gay rights are a very timely and important issue, racism is certainly still a relevant and valid topic to address in film, and to suggest otherwise is just wrong. I also think that in the passage you quote, she sounds as if she's judging the worth of the films nominated on irrelevant criteria. Best Picture is not about social relevance, or controversy, it's about film-making. So, she's making a very poor case against Crash here. But, as I pointed out, her article is not intended as a critical essay, or a well-reasoned argument; she's writing her personal reflections on the experience she had at the Oscars.

>I haven't seen Brokeback Mountain, yet thanks to this cunt, I
>already hate it. Bravo.

I haven't seen Crash, myself, but I liked Brokeback quite a bit. It seems silly to judge the film based on your opinion of the person who wrote the short story it was based on, though. And calling her the C-word is just uncalled for. Nobody should ever call a woman that, period.