Mano a Mano in the media

[drscott]

Hitch tears Moore a new one.

Presented in the interest of broadening discussion. Mostly I consider my journal a bad place to talk politics, so I don't, but this is too tasty a piece of writing to pass up.

Comments

[cabearcub.livejournal.com]

oops...I just realized going back to the article, that it CONTINUES on another page. I totally missed that when I read it the first time, which was why I commented on what I did.

Regarding your last sentence about "true understanding" though, I'd say the sentence would be very accurate describing the enemy of Truth, but not so much of "true understanding".

Noone can judge "understanding" for anyone else but themself, and even then, they could be way off the mark. I believe that TRUTH is TRUTH, independent of "understanding". That's why one person's "truth" isn't the same as another person's "truth". Each person understands what they want to, and in accordance with their's or another's interpretation.

I can't say if Michael Moore believes he's telling the unadulterated "truth". To him, it very well may be that. Anyone with an anti-Bush agenda will most likely be tempted to fully support his version of the "truth", whether they believe it or not.

I can tell the difference between Michael Moore's "truth" and what's most likely TRUTH; but if his "oversimplifying and distorting" helps to dethrone a man who I think is a severe hazard to my pursuit of happiness and well-being, then I am all for it. And I don't feel bad about it either. Living in a world where the choice isn't between what's best; but what's not the worst, each person needs to decide for themself what's most important to them, and what's the best way to ensure those things. And most of the time, it rarely has anything to do with TRUTH; just what is "true" for that person.