So, I started reading Michael Moore's new book

[El Blanco]

First off, I haven't started the fact digging yet, but most of what I came across is the same old bullshit which has already been torn up by places like Spinsanity. I've come to expect it from him and Chomsky. Thats not what gets me.

Is it his assumed intellectual superiority? No. All pundits are guilty of this in one form or another and we all know that it is totally baseless in his case.

What gets me is his condesending tone throughout the entire book. Apparently, the average person who calls themself a conservative isn't actually a conservative. They are just affraid of change and are little children who don't know any better.

Of course, anyone who can hear from a liberal and still hold conservative valuse must be a racist neanderthal who is scared of change and sunlight. Apparently, conservatives hate black people (which is wierd because my best friend is black and further right than I am), hate gay people, and want all poor people to just die (no matter how many of themselves started out that way).

Chapter 10 "How to Talk to Your Conservative Brother in Law" is the kind of shit that gets people punched. He assumes that the vast majority of people must be bleeding heart liberals who fall in line with every liberal cause (like he certainly does) and that conservatives are "rednecks"(his word) who have quaint little habbits (all punctual and reliable for fixing sinks). They are just your crazy cousin from the backwoods of Alabama.

Then, there is his blatant hypocrasy. He blasts the president for claiming he believes God wants him to do somethings. Then , he writes a chapter as Gpd. No big deal. I've seen it done before and some of them are funny. Not this one, but some. Then, he goes on to push his liberal viewpoints in the persona of God. What makes him thinks he knows a fucking thing about God's opinion on abortion? HE just did what he blasted the president for.

Don't think I'm dead set against him because he is a liberal. I actually liked Al Franken's book. I didn't agree with everything, but it was a good read.

I dislike Moore because he is dishonest, hypocritical, sensationalist and condesending. I'm glad I didn't pay for the book and am putting it in the returns bin ASAP ( I work in a bookstore and got through most of it on a lunchbreak.)

[mburbank]

So what's your take on Limbaugh?

[El Blanco]

Loudmouthed dumbass. But I haven't read his stuff. Ironically, most of the stuff I read is fairly left wing.

Then again, I have always a cliamed that I am independant, with conservative leanings.

[mburbank]

How about Al Franken? I think he's hysterical whatever your bent. I feel the same way about PJ Ororke, who's politics I don't care for but who is a damn fine humorist. Especially Holidays in Hell. That book rocks.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

I love George Will. He's so cocky and condescending. It's sexy.

[El Blanco]

Lies is funny and brings up a few good points (even if I don't agree with his conclusions). He does have that air of intellectual superiority, but its easier to tolerate it from him than from a high school drop out.

But I still have a special place in my heart for Bill O'Reilly. He reminds me of my dad so much.

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Peter Hart from the media watch dog FAIR is coming out with a book called "The Oh, Really? Factor"

I believe it's a collection of reports and releases on the lying, bumbling, air bag of contradictions that is Bill O'Reilly. It should be better than "Lies," IMO, b/c it'll be better researched (I heard that despite having a team of Harvard grad. students at his disposal, Franken neglects to document things very well in the book). The more I hear about "Lies," the less I wish to read it. And I was looking forward to it.

[El Blanco]

There is a reason its in the comedy section at my store and not social sciences with all the other political books.

And after Hart realeases his book, O'Reilly or someone will write a book pointing out all the bogus facts it that. And then Hart or Franken will write a book pointing out...........

[KevinTheOmnivore]

Well, when I mean citations, I mean that Hart's interest will be primarily on actual statements made in the press, on his show, in public places, etc.

That's what Hart does, whereas Franken seems to just be picking a fight against a conservative conspiracy, Hart doesn't spell that out for people, although he probably would like to. Now of course O'Reilly can challene this, but his challenge could only be that he was taken out of context, or something.....

[The One and Only...]

Was it Franken that wrote Supply Side Jesus? If so, that's the only thing I give him credit for...

[CastroMotorOil]

Ive read some of limbaugh's stuff, while the majority is shit, there are good points, just like in moore's work there is good stuff there too.

[n00bward]

I quite liked "Lies", I thought the"Chickenhawk Episode 1" chapter was very funny. And most of the rest of the book had a few decent chuckles in it as well. I've yet however to look up a lot of his stuff on Lexis Nexis to verify accuracy.

[Perndog]

Michael Moore is the deceitful jackass behind Bowling for Columbine, right?

[CastroMotorOil]

Yes, but his earlier stuff is actually good. I loved Roger and Me. I think that was before he knew how t odecive well.

[Zhukov]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/michaelmoo...056922,00.html


Here is a rather large extract for anyone interested.

[ranxer]

"Michael Moore is the deceitful jackass behind Bowling for Columbine, right?"
pern,
can you explain anything about that statement?

hah, bowling was one of the best movies i've ever seen on america.

so far i think moore's vids and movies are much better than his books. i have a hard time reading his stuff but i think i'll buy it just to support someone who's opposing the military industrial complex

awe darn, he changed the cover.. i liked the one with the black red yellow of the german flag :/

[VinceZeb]

Ranxer, if you believe Bowling for Columbine was accurate, then you have problems.

A guy I really don't like to listen to, Glenn Beck, brought up something the other day that really made me think. He said that the people who read Michael Moore's books are people who are usually not well off and believe everything is bad and liberal policies are great and it really doesn't inspire you about our country or workforce or military.

Just something to think about.

[Perndog]

Originally Posted by ranxer

"Michael Moore is the deceitful jackass behind Bowling for Columbine, right?"
pern,
can you explain anything about that statement?

hah, bowling was one of the best movies i've ever seen on america.

I almost wish I remembered what it was like to swallow everything the media fed me. Almost, because if I did I'd be a liberal drone.

Bowling for Columbine is above all else a collection of spin, deceit, and misinformation made to excite the people that want to believe the kind of shit the radical left is selling. It might have been worthwhile if it were sincere, but it's not, and if it were it wouldn't have been able to present the image that it did. Take a look at the facts: http://www.bowlingfortruth.com/

[CastroMotorOil]

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

[Perndog]

This is now the rip-on-Bowling thread.

The Democrat student group here on campus is showing Bowling for Columbine on the big screen here tomorrow. I made up some packets based on bowlingfortruth.com and will be handing them out.

Should be fun. I'm telling my friends to bring popcorn just to watch the arguments.

[Helm]

Not to discourage healthy arguments, but at least the section on Heston on bowling for truth I found to be as oppinion-based as the works of moore himself, instead of fact-based as the webmaster claims. So I wouldn't suggest using that parts, at least.

I found that closing segment of his movie to be sickeningly sensationalist (with the picture of the girl and all) and that sorta steered me against Moore's methods ( but not nec. against the message of the movie, which is that americans are taught to fear, because a fearful man is so much easier to control) but that doesn't mean I'll just buy any counter-argument around.

And so that we can all laugh I present this link from the bowling for truth website: Petition to revoke the Oscar

[Perndog]

The only things I'm pointing out about Charlton Heston are the facts. The spliced speeches (watch the magical changing suit. You can't argue with that.), the newspaper articles that are flashed by (48 hours after... and it was talking about Bill Clinton, also something beyond argument), and the fact that Moore was shamelessly baiting Heston instead of doing a normal interview (which should be obvious). Personally, I think a lot of the NRA folks are pretty loony, too, but they don't deserve this kind of treatment.

[incurable paranoiac]

MBurbank-
I agree about O'Rourke. I can't think of one thing I agree with him about (except for the stuff in Modern Manners), but I laugh myself sick every time I read him. He's a writer I look up to, because he writes about politics, and even people who loathe his politics can appreciate his writing. That's quite an accomplishment.

[incurable paranoiac]

I don't hold any particular fondness for Al Franken, but I think his heart is in the right place. Mainly I just loved that BookTV panel with Molly Ivins, Franken and O'Reilly. God, that was so amazing.

"The liberals resort to name-calling..." (forty five minutes later)"Shut up, you idiot!"

also

"Bill, this isn't your show."

if you haven't seen this, you can stream if off the booktv website.

[mburbank]

One of Frankens lesser known books, "Why not me?", which details a fictional Franken Presidential campaign and victory, is one of the funniest books I have ever read.