The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Had a look at moorelies.com. Yes Blank I wouldn't trust a site that doesn't use capitals or misspells words like hypocrisy.
However the links it provides to other sites such as the Times, I would be far more likely to trust.
I also read his rebuttals on his own site, and found a possible discrepancy. He says:
"The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control."
Report from the CDC is a link, clicking on it brings up a page where you can download the report. However it also mentions some highlights of the report. One is:
"In 1999 a total of 28,874 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States, down nearly 6 percent from the 30,625 deaths in 1998."
That is a big difference. The only point I'm making is that I'm missing something and wondering if anyone else knows what.
However the links it provides to other sites such as the Times, I would be far more likely to trust.
I also read his rebuttals on his own site, and found a possible discrepancy. He says:
"The U.S. figure of 11,127 gun deaths comes from a report from the Center for Disease Control."
Report from the CDC is a link, clicking on it brings up a page where you can download the report. However it also mentions some highlights of the report. One is:
"In 1999 a total of 28,874 persons died from firearm injuries in the United States, down nearly 6 percent from the 30,625 deaths in 1998."
That is a big difference. The only point I'm making is that I'm missing something and wondering if anyone else knows what.
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 ?
Proof of a staging, please.
Also some evidence of this apparent rage wouldn't go amiss.
Also some evidence of this apparent rage wouldn't go amiss.
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,
I've just visited moorelies.com. You actually believe a site that doesn't use capital letters and *does* use phrases like "faked editing"? If you know what that actually means please tell, I'd love to know. In response, here's Moore's rebuttal of a few accusations:
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/
Don't expect you to read it all, do expect you to read the first line and come up with a half baked reply.
http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/
Don't expect you to read it all, do expect you to read the first line and come up with a half baked reply.
http://www.city-journal.org/html/13_3_michael_moore.html
That's interesting as well.
That's interesting as well.
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.
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.
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:
> 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!
Page: