ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] ] If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic
] ] would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical
] ] Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and
] ] annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to,
] ] Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait
] ] would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would
] ] still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime
] ] family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North
] ] Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective
] ] awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To
] ] the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the
] ] great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten
] ] culture. Rock the vote, indeed.
]
] Scathing review of Fahrenheit 9/11, admittedly a movie I will
] be seeing this weekend. For those of us *liberals* who want
] to challenge our more biased thoughts before we see the movie,
] here is a good review to do so.

I'm not against informed criticism, even overheated informed criticism of populist documentaries like F 9/11, but is this article really anything more than a non-sequiturial rant? It reads more like a soap box preacher than an informed commentator. Oh well... this does seem to be the preferred form of defence for many Republicans in the USA. That ad hominem attacks are no substitute for honest debate is hard to get across, especially when some very senior Republican politicians would have no idea what it meant ... ;-)

Except that the author of this anti-Moore rant is Christopher Hitchens, a Brit expat who often writes for Vanity Fair and The Nation. Not really a repub operative, expecially given his other recent Slate editorial "Not Even a Hedgehog: The stupidity of Ronald Reagan." I believe his criticisms are still somewhat valid: As I expected, Moore's criticism itself is segmented and has trouble creating a cohesive view. Not unlike my rants on memestreams.

oaknet wrote:
] ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] ] ] If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic
] ] ] would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical
] ] ] Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and
] ] ] annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to,
] ] ] Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait
] ] ] would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would
] ] ] still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime
] ] ] family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North
] ] ] Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective
] ] ] awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To
] ] ] the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the
] ] ] great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten
] ] ] culture. Rock the vote, indeed.
] ]
] ] Scathing review of Fahrenheit 9/11, admittedly a movie I
] will
] ] be seeing this weekend. For those of us *liberals* who want
]
] ] to challenge our more biased thoughts before we see the
] movie,
] ] here is a good review to do so.
]
] I'm not against informed criticism, even overheated informed
] criticism of populist documentaries like F 9/11, but is this
] article really anything more than a non-sequiturial rant? It
] reads more like a soap box preacher than an informed
] commentator. Oh well... this does seem to be the preferred
] form of defence for many Republicans in the USA. That ad
] hominem attacks are no substitute for honest debate is hard to
] get across, especially when some very senior Republican
] politicians would have no idea what it meant ... ;-)

ryan is the supernicety wrote:
] Except that the author of this anti-Moore rant is Christopher
] Hitchens, a Brit expat who often writes for Vanity Fair and
] The Nation. Not really a repub operative, expecially given
] his other recent Slate editorial "Not Even a Hedgehog: The
] stupidity of Ronald Reagan." I believe his criticisms are
] still somewhat valid: As I expected, Moore's criticism itself
] is segmented and has trouble creating a cohesive view. Not
] unlike my rants on memestreams.

I take your point, but the article by Hitchens is made of the very stuff he complains about in Moore. I can hardly take him seriously when he so readily undermines his own means of presenting a case. Perhaps this is the new stock US requirement for "irony". Anyway, like you, I'll be seeing F 9/11 soon, less as a piece of objective reporting than a personal perspective which I can take or leave. Seeing the US defend freedom of speech remains a pleasure ...

Decius wrote:
] George Orwell:
]
] ] The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure
] ] religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to
] ] taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts
] ] beyond that point. But there is a minority of
] ] intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged
] ] motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and
] ] admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda
] ] usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as
] ] the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the
] ] younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do
] ] not by any means express impartial disapproval but are
] ] directed almost entirely against Britain and the United
] ] States
]
] The only point the left is earning here is that most
] Republicans are too stupid to think critically about their own
] pundits. Congradulations Democrats, you've now lowered
] yourself to their level.

Well, like it or not, it's a way to get votes. At least we can win this way. You can't hardly affect change if you are never in the majority (non-two-partyer). Unfortunately, sex and violence sells, not long textual posts on a corner of the internet. We can all feel good in our towers over this way and make our battles, but the half-assed pundits will always reach greater audiences.