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]

and yet, with all his buck-fifty wordiness, he STILL wasn't able to say anything that anyone who hasn't even seen the movie could have said about it....

opinions are like assholes, as the saying goes....

I'd rather hear the reasons for an opinion than the mere opinion itself.

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

It is a tasty piece of writing to pass up. :-)

And Hitch does tear Moore to shreds. I've not heard a single decent thing about this movie, and have heard about his actions since it came out.

He reminds me so much of the fundamentalist rhetoric, in that he, and the fundies believe in what they want to believe and ignore the rest, even if it's true and never aknowledge that their demogogs have no basis in reality nor make any sense half the time.

Thanks for sharing.

and one other thing...

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

Moore is a big fat boob who's not pretty in the slightest and is as dim witted as our own prez.

[cowboygreg.livejournal.com]

I just can't take Michael Moore seriously any more, after the omissions, distortions, and outright lies of Bowling for Columbine were pointed out (and not just by the usual right-wing bile mongers, either, but by centrist and lefty writers as well).

Moore's attempts, when confronted with evidence that he's made things up out of whole cloth, is to attempt to claim that he's not sworn to tell the truth, and that he's made an "op-ed piece" or a "comedy".

Really, that's the sort of lame-ass spin I expect from Ann Coulter (who's also been caught making things up). Neither one of them can be taken seriously. They're just 21st century minstrels, pandering to their respective fan bases. But serious political thinkers? Er... no.

Re: and one other thing...

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

Tsk. His appearance and personal habits are irrelevant; it's the dishonesty that's ugly. Like The Day After Tomorrow and almost everything MoveOn.org does, the willingness to use crude propaganda techniques ultimately backfires and loses the support of the more intelligent uncommitteds out there.

[dr-scott.livejournal.com]

He does go into some of the specific issues he has with the movie. Hitchens is not some random person, though -- he's one of the most respected writers on the Left.

It's interesting that along with the Republican/Democrat divide and the left/right divide, there's also a divide between those who think their ideological ends justify any means -- win converts no matter how you have to oversimplify and distort -- and those who insist on an honest debate. The tribalism that creates coalitions of fellow travelers who will support each other's agendas to gain power is the enemy of true understanding.

Re: and one other thing...

[ciddyguy.livejournal.com]

Well, I agree with all that in more ways come sunday.

What I was trying to add is just look at him and one can tell, he's not the brightest guy out there.

It is unfortunate that while I can't, and have not seen a single frame of his films, I can't stand the sight of the guy, he just looks, as my youngest sister would say smarmy.

[beastbriskett.livejournal.com]

Moore is a gadfly and a comedian who has had the misfortune of being taken too seriously, and made the mistake of believing the hype that's been spun about him.
It's as if one were to try to take a SNL newscast and spin it as if it were truth, rather than satire.
Moore has a place in the political arena--his films get debate started, and if in the process, his warts begin to show, it's unfortunate. If he crafted his films more carefully, they would probably more resemble Frontline, stand up better to scrutiny, and unfortunately, cease to be funny.

[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.