Viewing Thread:
"Dude, Where's my Country"

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.

personally i think this guys a complete nob end!, he basically makes money out of just caining down his own country to the rest of the world him and george galloway should be publicly beaten

I read the introduction of Stupid White Men today.

It's pretty funny so far, so good. :-)

Belldandy wrote:
> You have said Clancy's books always show the US military in certain
> positive shining light.
>
> The only way you can do so is to refer to content because nothing
> else can allow for the formation of that statement.

---

You are quite possibly the stupidest creature to have ever survived past infancy without tubes up it's ass feeding it gruel.

I have only ever said "You COULD argue" and "it MIGHT be said".
I said the US military only lend support to areas that depict it in the correct (ie non-confrontational) manner.

You can make general comments about an author without having read their works.
For example:
Jeffrey Archer writes typical political thrillers that use his Parlimentary knowledge to add a level of insider-realism.
Are you catching this at all?
Or are you too busy furiously jerking off like an ape at the zoo at the thought of your icon visiting these shores?

You have said "You said this"
Goatboy "Where? Show me the post"
Bell "I can't, but you did"
Goatboy "No, I didn't"

There have been 3 different people all explain to you what I said and how, the manner and context.
But you are too stupid to understand.

I have not at any point commented specifically on the content of his books.
Because I haven't read them.
Because they are "Eagle For Boys" annuals with no pics and lots of acronyms.
I have commented on the perception I have of his work, and for this I do not need to have read them.
You, however, have argued at length specific details of books and films you haven't seen or read.

Now, for the last time because I'm getting weary of repeatedly drawing a massive great D in the center of your Uncle Sam hat - you are wrong.
Again.
Deal with it.

Belldandy wrote:
> Well I have said more than once I will not further comment on Moore's
> book.
>
> Goatboy asked where I thought he had commented on Clancy's content.
>
> I answered - people moan. If I don't answer - other people say I am
> avoiding the question.
>
> Lose/Lose all round really isn't it ?

No Bell, it's lose-lose for you. Because you see you didn't answer the question. Goaty asked for you to show where he's said he read Tom Clancy. You simply said "He has said this" and left it at that. So that's point 1.

Point 2 is the fact that Goaty made a sweepingly general comment about Clancy's books; a one that could have been made with the barest of knowledge of Clancy that had been acquired by, for example, playing things like "Tom Clancy's Splinter Cell" or "Rainbow 6" on a console. Did you bother to check that? No. You didn't.

Point 3 is that, whilst Goaty made a general statement, you have made numerous specific references to Michael Moore's books. Which you haven't read. And his films. Which you haven't seen.


So then; back to the original point, and I'll even modify it in honour of your sophistry and desperate attempts to backpeddle; how can you make specific (not general) comments on specific content of Moore's films and books when you haven't so much as read or seen them?

Well I have said more than once I will not further comment on Moore's book.

Goatboy asked where I thought he had commented on Clancy's content.

I answered - people moan. If I don't answer - other people say I am avoiding the question.

Lose/Lose all round really isn't it ?

In fact, may call it an insult to the importance of flying donkey peni.

Belldandy wrote:
> You have said Clancy's books always show the US military in certain
> positive shining light.
>
> The only way you can do so is to refer to content because nothing
> else can allow for the formation of that statement.
>
> You have not read books, hence cannot make that statement.
>
> Do I have to make it any clearer ?

Funnily enough, I seem to remember the original post in this thread having something to do with Michael Moore - remember him? Would it at all be possible to comment on how you're possibly capable of forming a valid opinion on Michael Moore without actually having read or seen any of his material? Seeing as you've admitted that the only thing you've read of his is the first page of his book in Smiths and some anti-Moore books?

I think I speak for everyone in this thread when I say I couldn't give a flying wang about Tom Clancy.

Belldandy wrote:
> Woohoo :) New Britney Spears album out tomorrow morning :D

More then a little random…

Yet you dislike Moore?

Woohoo :) New Britney Spears album out tomorrow morning :D