The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
> Oh but I did, and despite his usual rage/etc he neatly skips around
> the truth. i.e. A documentary is not a documentary if you stage it,
And you'd know, having watched and research it extensively by...oh. Not watching it. And not reading a single thing about it. Right...
So how did he stage Tim McVeigh's friend being somewhat of a psycho? How did he stage the NRA members in his home state being fairly reasonable, albeit anorak-like about guns, people? How did he stage the Columbine massacre footage? How did he stage K-Mart withdrawing ammo from sale on the basis of his taking two Columbine victims to their HQ?
You don't know? Oh right; you're only talking about the Charlton Heston bit, right?
Well seeing as you're the expert, why don't you explain to us all exactly what was staged? Or are you going to avoid that as well?
> Oh but I did, and despite his usual rage/etc he neatly skips around
> the truth. i.e. A documentary is not a documentary if you stage it,
And you'd know, having watched and research it extensively by...oh. Not watching it. And not reading a single thing about it. Right...
So how did he stage Tim McVeigh's friend being somewhat of a psycho? How did he stage the NRA members in his home state being fairly reasonable, albeit anorak-like about guns, people? How did he stage the Columbine massacre footage? How did he stage K-Mart withdrawing ammo from sale on the basis of his taking two Columbine victims to their HQ?
You don't know? Oh right; you're only talking about the Charlton Heston bit, right?
Well seeing as you're the expert, why don't you explain to us all exactly what was staged? Or are you going to avoid that as well?
Belldandy wrote:
> Blus I see nothing refuting the supposed errors in his new book, or
> the tale of his past, or in fact anything much on that site I posted.
> You did read it did you not ?
I merely posted a link to Moore's own rebuttal of points levelled against him. I can't speak for the man.
But, tell me this, how do you know that these criticisms of Moore are in any way justified? They might be, they might not, but how would *you* know? You've never read the books. You've said you wouldn't touch them with a barge pole, so it's unlikely you've sat through his films. So these points might all be absolute nonsense from your point of view.
And I'm still waiting for a definition of "faked editing," by the way.
> Blus I see nothing refuting the supposed errors in his new book, or
> the tale of his past, or in fact anything much on that site I posted.
> You did read it did you not ?
I merely posted a link to Moore's own rebuttal of points levelled against him. I can't speak for the man.
But, tell me this, how do you know that these criticisms of Moore are in any way justified? They might be, they might not, but how would *you* know? You've never read the books. You've said you wouldn't touch them with a barge pole, so it's unlikely you've sat through his films. So these points might all be absolute nonsense from your point of view.
And I'm still waiting for a definition of "faked editing," by the way.
How do I know they are justified ? Because they are believable, and Moore is not. I will not buy anything of his, ever. That simple.
Nice to you're open-minded about these things, then.
Belldandy wrote:
> How do I know they are justified ? Because they are believable, and
> Moore is not. I will not buy anything of his, ever. That simple.
I'll, seriously, mail you a copy of "Stupid White Men" if you want - that way you won't have to contribute to his next T-bone. I didn't like his writing style, or some of his interview techniques either, but at least I took the time to actually read some of his work before I forged that opinion of him. That's why I'm not getting a slaying.
> How do I know they are justified ? Because they are believable, and
> Moore is not. I will not buy anything of his, ever. That simple.
I'll, seriously, mail you a copy of "Stupid White Men" if you want - that way you won't have to contribute to his next T-bone. I didn't like his writing style, or some of his interview techniques either, but at least I took the time to actually read some of his work before I forged that opinion of him. That's why I'm not getting a slaying.
Oh, so you believe people who use phrases like "faked editing" (still waiting for that explanation) over someone you've never even read anything by? Sure. And why is that I wonder? Because he criticises the Bush regime. Therefore you see him as an enemy.
So...you've decided not to comment on the sources for the links between Dubya and bin Laden's family then? There IS a surprise; Bell, running wailing from a topic.
So...you're mewling about how Moore is "unbelievable" despite never once having read or seen a single piece of his work? There's another surprise; Bell trying to comment with authority on something he knows nothing about.
So...you're avoiding addressing Blank's query about 'staging'? There's a third surprise; Bell behaving like a moral and intellectual coward.
So...you don't see how stupid you've made yourself look throughout this thread? Well, there's a final surprise; Bell taking refuge in self-important prissyness so that he doesn't have to confront the fact that he's regarded as a joke, and that the only person who takes him seriously is himself.
It must really suck to be you Bell.
So...you're mewling about how Moore is "unbelievable" despite never once having read or seen a single piece of his work? There's another surprise; Bell trying to comment with authority on something he knows nothing about.
So...you're avoiding addressing Blank's query about 'staging'? There's a third surprise; Bell behaving like a moral and intellectual coward.
So...you don't see how stupid you've made yourself look throughout this thread? Well, there's a final surprise; Bell taking refuge in self-important prissyness so that he doesn't have to confront the fact that he's regarded as a joke, and that the only person who takes him seriously is himself.
It must really suck to be you Bell.
monkey_man wrote:
> I didn't like his writing style, or some of his interview techniques
> either, but at least I took the time to actually read some of his
> work before I forged that opinion of him. That's why I'm not getting
> a slaying.
Exactly! You have your opinions of him, and you're willing to explain and justify them because they're based on your own experience. I would imagine I'll disagree with your criticisms of Moore, but I respect the fact that you've sat and thought about them. Bell has an opinion of him based on nothing more than what he was told to think, yet doesn't seem to understand why this makes him look unutterably stupid.
> I didn't like his writing style, or some of his interview techniques
> either, but at least I took the time to actually read some of his
> work before I forged that opinion of him. That's why I'm not getting
> a slaying.
Exactly! You have your opinions of him, and you're willing to explain and justify them because they're based on your own experience. I would imagine I'll disagree with your criticisms of Moore, but I respect the fact that you've sat and thought about them. Bell has an opinion of him based on nothing more than what he was told to think, yet doesn't seem to understand why this makes him look unutterably stupid.
Light wrote:
> So...you've decided not to comment on the sources for the links
> between Dubya and bin Laden's family then? There IS a surprise; Bell,
> running wailing from a topic.
How could I comment on sources I haven't seen? I simply asked if the NYT was one source, because I had seen it mentioned elsewhere as to the nature of the source. Should hell freeze over and I read his book then I'll give you an opinion on the sources.
And it's good to be me actually, thanks very much.
> So...you've decided not to comment on the sources for the links
> between Dubya and bin Laden's family then? There IS a surprise; Bell,
> running wailing from a topic.
How could I comment on sources I haven't seen? I simply asked if the NYT was one source, because I had seen it mentioned elsewhere as to the nature of the source. Should hell freeze over and I read his book then I'll give you an opinion on the sources.
And it's good to be me actually, thanks very much.
Belldandy wrote:
> How could I comment on sources I haven't seen? I simply asked if the
> NYT was one source, because I had seen it mentioned elsewhere as to
> the nature of the source. Should hell freeze over and I read his book
> then I'll give you an opinion on the sources.
Well, you're happy to give us an opinion of Moore without having read his book. And you were more than prepared to say that the sources from the New York Times were nothing but lies. So why back down now Bell? Is it dawning on you that you've made yourself look like a 3 week old bucket of menstrual blood clots?
>
> And it's good to be me actually, thanks very much.
Actually, yeah I can see it would be; I'd failed to take into account that ignorance is bliss.
> How could I comment on sources I haven't seen? I simply asked if the
> NYT was one source, because I had seen it mentioned elsewhere as to
> the nature of the source. Should hell freeze over and I read his book
> then I'll give you an opinion on the sources.
Well, you're happy to give us an opinion of Moore without having read his book. And you were more than prepared to say that the sources from the New York Times were nothing but lies. So why back down now Bell? Is it dawning on you that you've made yourself look like a 3 week old bucket of menstrual blood clots?
>
> And it's good to be me actually, thanks very much.
Actually, yeah I can see it would be; I'd failed to take into account that ignorance is bliss.
Page: