The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Is the new book by Michael Moore, he of 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Stupid White Men' fame.
For those of you who don't know about him, Moore is one of those rare beasts; an angry liberal. The Oscar winning documentary, Bowling for Columbine, seethed with barely contained rage at the deliberate use of fear by the US government and media in order to keep people in line. The international bestseller, Stupid White Men, railed at the reality of America today; that the entire country is run for the benefit of a very few people, and that those people are happy to break and abuse the law to continue doing so.
'Dude, Where's my Country' is a follow up to 'Stupid White Men'. It deals with much the same theme as it's predecessor: How America is being run, and the direction it is heading in under Dubya and the Republican party.
Moore makes a number of quite startling accusations against Dubya and his government. So startling in fact that I found myself thinking "Nah, this can't be true...he must be exaggerating to make his point". Happily, references to the sources he drew the information from are provided in the book, so if you're as sad as I am, you can check the references and validate what he's saying yourself.
You may wish you hadn't though; Moore paints a very unwelcome picture of an America with numerous terrifying parallels to 30's Germany (in particular, the abuse of Patriotism; if you don't support Dubya/the Fuhrer, you're unpatriotic and woe betide you then...), and of a world in general that has more in common with 1984 than the fairytale that America is supposed to represent.
It's not all doom and gloom however. We in the UK have an image of Americans as reactionary conservatives with no interest in civil rights. Moore devotes a whole chapter to dispelling this myth. The average American is a lot more liberal than the average European. Unfortunately, Mr Average America is also a lot more apathetic, and this goes some way to explaining the disproportionate influence wielded by the extreme right in the US.
If I had to make a criticism of the book, it would be the tone used. Moore has a habit of transferring his rage directly onto the page. As such, some might be turned off by the angry rhetoric (and, occasionally, the snide sniping that one tends to associate with conservatives like Ann Coulter) that peppers the book.
But that would be to miss the point; one should concentrate on WHAT Moore says, and not the way in which he says it. Though the anger is palpable, Moore is also able to laugh at himself, as well as poking fun at his targets. This makes him a much easier read than, for example, the humourless displeasure that Dubya incurs in most other prominent liberals.
All in all, I would recommend this book to anyone with any interest at all in politics and international events, regardless of their political slant. It's accessible and well written. Liberals will find themself nodding in agreement, Conservatives will doubtless not even bother to read it. But they should, as it will give any reader a lot to think about.
For those of you who don't know about him, Moore is one of those rare beasts; an angry liberal. The Oscar winning documentary, Bowling for Columbine, seethed with barely contained rage at the deliberate use of fear by the US government and media in order to keep people in line. The international bestseller, Stupid White Men, railed at the reality of America today; that the entire country is run for the benefit of a very few people, and that those people are happy to break and abuse the law to continue doing so.
'Dude, Where's my Country' is a follow up to 'Stupid White Men'. It deals with much the same theme as it's predecessor: How America is being run, and the direction it is heading in under Dubya and the Republican party.
Moore makes a number of quite startling accusations against Dubya and his government. So startling in fact that I found myself thinking "Nah, this can't be true...he must be exaggerating to make his point". Happily, references to the sources he drew the information from are provided in the book, so if you're as sad as I am, you can check the references and validate what he's saying yourself.
You may wish you hadn't though; Moore paints a very unwelcome picture of an America with numerous terrifying parallels to 30's Germany (in particular, the abuse of Patriotism; if you don't support Dubya/the Fuhrer, you're unpatriotic and woe betide you then...), and of a world in general that has more in common with 1984 than the fairytale that America is supposed to represent.
It's not all doom and gloom however. We in the UK have an image of Americans as reactionary conservatives with no interest in civil rights. Moore devotes a whole chapter to dispelling this myth. The average American is a lot more liberal than the average European. Unfortunately, Mr Average America is also a lot more apathetic, and this goes some way to explaining the disproportionate influence wielded by the extreme right in the US.
If I had to make a criticism of the book, it would be the tone used. Moore has a habit of transferring his rage directly onto the page. As such, some might be turned off by the angry rhetoric (and, occasionally, the snide sniping that one tends to associate with conservatives like Ann Coulter) that peppers the book.
But that would be to miss the point; one should concentrate on WHAT Moore says, and not the way in which he says it. Though the anger is palpable, Moore is also able to laugh at himself, as well as poking fun at his targets. This makes him a much easier read than, for example, the humourless displeasure that Dubya incurs in most other prominent liberals.
All in all, I would recommend this book to anyone with any interest at all in politics and international events, regardless of their political slant. It's accessible and well written. Liberals will find themself nodding in agreement, Conservatives will doubtless not even bother to read it. But they should, as it will give any reader a lot to think about.
Page:
Belldandy wrote:
> Hell, one day I'll finally finish reading Deterring Democracy, but I
> know I have never said nor claimed to have any of the trash Moore has
> written or filmed.
And yet you still feel you can offer an informed opinion on his work. You've read one page. You can't. It's really that simple.
> Hell, one day I'll finally finish reading Deterring Democracy, but I
> know I have never said nor claimed to have any of the trash Moore has
> written or filmed.
And yet you still feel you can offer an informed opinion on his work. You've read one page. You can't. It's really that simple.
Belldandy wrote:
but I
> know I have never said nor claimed to have any of the trash Moore has
> written or filmed.
---
So, before I go pop the thread where I called you on Deterring Democracy and asked you to provide a paragraph (which you did 2 days later once purchashed from your local bookstore), you deny that you also said you had "Stupid White Men" but then said you couldn't bring yourself to read it?
But, quite apart from that, you're basing your impression on Michael Moore's books on having read 1 page in Smiths and from other people's opinions on Amazon?
Isn't that...I don't know...ridiculous? How can you hold a discussion on an author that you quite blatantly haven't read? That's like saying "Oh I don't cheese because my mum says it's not good". You need to have read in order to know what it's about - no amount of preface or reviews from other people can tell you what a book is about.
Without having read the source material, you cannot reasonably counter-argue the points for the simple reason you haven't read them.
*shakes head*
I've read you dismiss Moore time and time again, write him off as a "whiny leftist" etc etc, yet you've only ever bothered to read the websites trying to discredit by bringing up inconsistencies in a documentary?
If you're going to start binning somebody because somebody else says they altered things and changed bits, then how on earth have you been arguing pro-government and pro-CIA over Iraq, with their less than stellar evidence/dossier/intelligence handling?
Why is it ok for them to do, yet Moore gets lambasted? It makes no sense.
Your arguments and reasons for not liking Michael Moore make no sense.
You haven't read him, haven't seen anything by him apart from Bowling for Columbine (and then even maybe you watched that).
It would appear, once again, that you are arguing and attacking somebody/something without being in full possession of the facts - by your own admittance you are unfamiliar with Moore's writings.
When I was talking about Indian independance, I said "I don't know to be honest, my knowledge goes little beyond the Ghandi movie" - I said I wasn't even 50% certain of what I was saying.
Yet you feel in a position to rally against Michael Moore's books, having never read them for yourself and therefore unable to form your own opinion.
Tsk tsk.
but I
> know I have never said nor claimed to have any of the trash Moore has
> written or filmed.
---
So, before I go pop the thread where I called you on Deterring Democracy and asked you to provide a paragraph (which you did 2 days later once purchashed from your local bookstore), you deny that you also said you had "Stupid White Men" but then said you couldn't bring yourself to read it?
But, quite apart from that, you're basing your impression on Michael Moore's books on having read 1 page in Smiths and from other people's opinions on Amazon?
Isn't that...I don't know...ridiculous? How can you hold a discussion on an author that you quite blatantly haven't read? That's like saying "Oh I don't cheese because my mum says it's not good". You need to have read in order to know what it's about - no amount of preface or reviews from other people can tell you what a book is about.
Without having read the source material, you cannot reasonably counter-argue the points for the simple reason you haven't read them.
*shakes head*
I've read you dismiss Moore time and time again, write him off as a "whiny leftist" etc etc, yet you've only ever bothered to read the websites trying to discredit by bringing up inconsistencies in a documentary?
If you're going to start binning somebody because somebody else says they altered things and changed bits, then how on earth have you been arguing pro-government and pro-CIA over Iraq, with their less than stellar evidence/dossier/intelligence handling?
Why is it ok for them to do, yet Moore gets lambasted? It makes no sense.
Your arguments and reasons for not liking Michael Moore make no sense.
You haven't read him, haven't seen anything by him apart from Bowling for Columbine (and then even maybe you watched that).
It would appear, once again, that you are arguing and attacking somebody/something without being in full possession of the facts - by your own admittance you are unfamiliar with Moore's writings.
When I was talking about Indian independance, I said "I don't know to be honest, my knowledge goes little beyond the Ghandi movie" - I said I wasn't even 50% certain of what I was saying.
Yet you feel in a position to rally against Michael Moore's books, having never read them for yourself and therefore unable to form your own opinion.
Tsk tsk.
Belldandy wrote:
> If I want to read about his topics I will do so in a book where the
> author can put points across farily, and without avoiding certain
> topics,and suchlike.
Go on, what topics does he avoid? Seeing as, by your own admission, you've never read beyond the first page, I'd like to know from you what topics he has avoided.
You're maing a mockery of yourself. In the same post: "He avoids topics and doesn't fairly put across points, but I'd never read any of his work." Does that not strike you as a little inconsistent?
> If I want to read about his topics I will do so in a book where the
> author can put points across farily, and without avoiding certain
> topics,and suchlike.
Go on, what topics does he avoid? Seeing as, by your own admission, you've never read beyond the first page, I'd like to know from you what topics he has avoided.
You're maing a mockery of yourself. In the same post: "He avoids topics and doesn't fairly put across points, but I'd never read any of his work." Does that not strike you as a little inconsistent?
I'm going to see Michael Moore next week as part of his 'Dude, Where's My Country? Live!' tour. Should be a laugh.
For the record I prefer his films to his books because his writing style gives me a bit of a headache, but I've got nothing but respect for a guy who gets a book about issues routinely ignored by the media to the top of the bestseller lists. Even if he is doing it to fund Santa's nicotine addiction.
For the record I prefer his films to his books because his writing style gives me a bit of a headache, but I've got nothing but respect for a guy who gets a book about issues routinely ignored by the media to the top of the bestseller lists. Even if he is doing it to fund Santa's nicotine addiction.
I suppose that tour is sold out? I'll cheque (I'm making up for incorrect American spellings) out his website, see where it's stopping.
Blank wrote:
> Go on, what topics does he avoid?
Bill Clinton being a lying piece of crap (amongst other things) ?
Bush winning the 2000 election fairly and reinforced by 2 evenly split Democrat and Republican sets of judges, in 2 seperate courts ?
The Democrat's own little antics in the 2000 elections ?
The USA only funding native Afghans and not Arab Afghans in the 80's ?
Apparently (and this is only from a review) Bush associating with some relative of Bin Laden's and the actual source of this?
If he truly does address these then it may be interesting. Go on, surprise me. Or do these answers come Christmas 2004 ?
> Go on, what topics does he avoid?
Bill Clinton being a lying piece of crap (amongst other things) ?
Bush winning the 2000 election fairly and reinforced by 2 evenly split Democrat and Republican sets of judges, in 2 seperate courts ?
The Democrat's own little antics in the 2000 elections ?
The USA only funding native Afghans and not Arab Afghans in the 80's ?
Apparently (and this is only from a review) Bush associating with some relative of Bin Laden's and the actual source of this?
If he truly does address these then it may be interesting. Go on, surprise me. Or do these answers come Christmas 2004 ?
Belldandy wrote:
> Blank wrote:
> Go on, what topics does he avoid?
>
> Bill Clinton being a lying piece of crap (amongst other things) ?
No; he repeatedly mentions not only Bill's lying, but the accusation that he had 48 people murdered by the secret service.
>
> Bush winning the 2000 election fairly and reinforced by 2 evenly
> split Democrat and Republican sets of judges, in 2 seperate courts ?
Evenly split? AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!! Read the facts dear boy, not the propaganda.
>
> The Democrat's own little antics in the 2000 elections ?
No, he pretty much rips into them as well.
>
> The USA only funding native Afghans and not Arab Afghans in the 80's
Lies I'm afraid Bell; even the CIA acknowledge they trained Bin Laden. So why can't you?
> ?
>
> Apparently (and this is only from a review) Bush associating with
> some relative of Bin Laden's and the actual source of this?
Yes, he gives numerous sources. Which, as you don't bother to read the book, you don't know about and so look kinda stupid when you say "I haven't seen them, but they're lies!"
>
> If he truly does address these then it may be interesting. Go on,
> surprise me. Or do these answers come Christmas 2004 ?
Yes, he does. He answers all of them. Had you read any of his books, you'd perhaps no that. But instead, you haven't and so all of your above criticisms look like the mewlings of an ignorant fundamentalist. So nothing new there obviously, but I do enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself. Again!
> Blank wrote:
> Go on, what topics does he avoid?
>
> Bill Clinton being a lying piece of crap (amongst other things) ?
No; he repeatedly mentions not only Bill's lying, but the accusation that he had 48 people murdered by the secret service.
>
> Bush winning the 2000 election fairly and reinforced by 2 evenly
> split Democrat and Republican sets of judges, in 2 seperate courts ?
Evenly split? AAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!! Read the facts dear boy, not the propaganda.
>
> The Democrat's own little antics in the 2000 elections ?
No, he pretty much rips into them as well.
>
> The USA only funding native Afghans and not Arab Afghans in the 80's
Lies I'm afraid Bell; even the CIA acknowledge they trained Bin Laden. So why can't you?
> ?
>
> Apparently (and this is only from a review) Bush associating with
> some relative of Bin Laden's and the actual source of this?
Yes, he gives numerous sources. Which, as you don't bother to read the book, you don't know about and so look kinda stupid when you say "I haven't seen them, but they're lies!"
>
> If he truly does address these then it may be interesting. Go on,
> surprise me. Or do these answers come Christmas 2004 ?
Yes, he does. He answers all of them. Had you read any of his books, you'd perhaps no that. But instead, you haven't and so all of your above criticisms look like the mewlings of an ignorant fundamentalist. So nothing new there obviously, but I do enjoy watching you make a fool of yourself. Again!
Light wrote:
> Yes, he gives numerous sources. Which, as you don't bother to read
> the book, you don't know about and so look kinda stupid when you say
> "I haven't seen them, but they're lies!"
Would any of these sources be referring to the New York Times at all ?
> Yes, he gives numerous sources. Which, as you don't bother to read
> the book, you don't know about and so look kinda stupid when you say
> "I haven't seen them, but they're lies!"
Would any of these sources be referring to the New York Times at all ?
Belldandy wrote:
> Light wrote:
> Yes, he gives numerous sources. Which, as you don't bother to read
> the book, you don't know about and so look kinda stupid when you say
> "I haven't seen them, but they're lies!"
>
> Would any of these sources be referring to the New York Times at all
> ?
Offhand? As I don't have the book, I can't remember all of 'em. Though I'm pretty sure at least one does come from the NYT. Why, are you gonna say that anything in there cannot be trusted? Tell you what though, I'll give you some of them tomorrow. Because you see, there is more than one. So I'm looking forward to seeing you try to dismiss yet more organisations as 'biased and crooked' for casting aspertions on your beloved Dubya.
Of course, it would be much easier if you simply read it. After all, your other objections got blasted out of the water, and you'd have known that had you read the book.
> Light wrote:
> Yes, he gives numerous sources. Which, as you don't bother to read
> the book, you don't know about and so look kinda stupid when you say
> "I haven't seen them, but they're lies!"
>
> Would any of these sources be referring to the New York Times at all
> ?
Offhand? As I don't have the book, I can't remember all of 'em. Though I'm pretty sure at least one does come from the NYT. Why, are you gonna say that anything in there cannot be trusted? Tell you what though, I'll give you some of them tomorrow. Because you see, there is more than one. So I'm looking forward to seeing you try to dismiss yet more organisations as 'biased and crooked' for casting aspertions on your beloved Dubya.
Of course, it would be much easier if you simply read it. After all, your other objections got blasted out of the water, and you'd have known that had you read the book.
http://www.moorelies.com
I think I just found my new internet site of the week. Apparently I'm the only who think's Moore's work is best suited to toilet paper designs.
I think I just found my new internet site of the week. Apparently I'm the only who think's Moore's work is best suited to toilet paper designs.
Page: