The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
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 ?
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.
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.
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?
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:
> 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.
Dringo wrote:
> The Charlton Heston Interview was one of the highlights of Bowling For
> Columbine...
Pity it was edited around then eh ?
I'm simply saying that never in a million years will a book by Moore ever be something I part with money for or my hands ever grasp again.
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.
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.
> The Charlton Heston Interview was one of the highlights of Bowling For
> Columbine...
Pity it was edited around then eh ?
I'm simply saying that never in a million years will a book by Moore ever be something I part with money for or my hands ever grasp again.
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.
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.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> I've read about the first page of the book in WHSmiths and I could
> tell his writing style that easily, plus from reviews on Amazon
I see; so you can tell exactly what he's like by one page? Oh, and some reviews? And that qualifies you to give a detailed criticism of him eh? Bwah ha ha ha ha haaaa! B******t; why don't you just admit what is plainly obvious; you made up your mind on Moore the instant you found out he was anti-Dubya, and now you're scrabbling for justifications for your borrowed belief.
- I'm
> not wasting money on something that'll be binned immediately. Still,
> you go ahead and buy his shiny new hardback - if only all authors
> could suddenly time their inspiration for the Holiday Season eh ?
Erm...was that meant to have been a dig at Moore? Well...bearing in mind all authors work to deadlines (yes, even your beloved Coulter), and bearing in mind it was his publishers who will have set the deadline, your attempt at bile is rather weak. Even for someone who hasn't actually read a single one of his books.
Binned immediately? Heh. Nice to see you're doing your best to look at all the evidence arrayed against Dubya. How can you even feasibly claim to be doing your job as a pro-USA person who is supposedly well informed, when you won't even acknowledge the evidence against him? Why, that almost sounds like you're nothing more than a fundamentalist who unthinkingly parrots opinions that aren't his own (and yes, I've already explained the difference between your parroting and my own opinions. Please don't insult my intelligence by trotting out your new favourite retort to that accusation).
>
> I have read Ann Coulter though, but I didn't expect you'd like her
> either because she's the opposite to Moore, nor does she feel the
> need to make irrelevant documentaries which need to be edited around
> to fit the theme...
No; I dislike her because she has no qualms about making outrageous statements that have no facts or sources in support (I'm really looking forward to you trying to justify her assertion that Senator Joe Macarthy was, in fact, a true America hero, and NOT an alcoholic chancer who created the Anti-American hearings as a method of boosting his profile...), which are then lapped up without question by simpering fundamentalists who never bother to check their facts, and then repeat what she's said as gospel. You know; people like you.
For the record, Moore provides references and sources for every assertion he makes. Not that all of those sources are reliable (y'see, grown-ups tend to check the facts behind things before coming to an opinion of their own. Which is something you could learn about...), but he's at least trying. Bill O'Reilly is probably the best of the right wing american polemicists. At least he backs up what he says. Coulter is...well, to be honest, I've stopped taking her seriously. It's amusing to watch the reaction of some liberals to her fairy stories, and it's even more amusing to see who actually believes her (you should know that she's actually discredited in most Republican circles).
Erm...I don't much understand your criticism of the Oscar winning documentary either. Could you explain what you were trying to say there? I suspect you can't actually; you don't seem to really understand your own insults. Only it doesn't even read like an insult. Just a childish piece of petulance.
>
> I've read about the first page of the book in WHSmiths and I could
> tell his writing style that easily, plus from reviews on Amazon
I see; so you can tell exactly what he's like by one page? Oh, and some reviews? And that qualifies you to give a detailed criticism of him eh? Bwah ha ha ha ha haaaa! B******t; why don't you just admit what is plainly obvious; you made up your mind on Moore the instant you found out he was anti-Dubya, and now you're scrabbling for justifications for your borrowed belief.
- I'm
> not wasting money on something that'll be binned immediately. Still,
> you go ahead and buy his shiny new hardback - if only all authors
> could suddenly time their inspiration for the Holiday Season eh ?
Erm...was that meant to have been a dig at Moore? Well...bearing in mind all authors work to deadlines (yes, even your beloved Coulter), and bearing in mind it was his publishers who will have set the deadline, your attempt at bile is rather weak. Even for someone who hasn't actually read a single one of his books.
Binned immediately? Heh. Nice to see you're doing your best to look at all the evidence arrayed against Dubya. How can you even feasibly claim to be doing your job as a pro-USA person who is supposedly well informed, when you won't even acknowledge the evidence against him? Why, that almost sounds like you're nothing more than a fundamentalist who unthinkingly parrots opinions that aren't his own (and yes, I've already explained the difference between your parroting and my own opinions. Please don't insult my intelligence by trotting out your new favourite retort to that accusation).
>
> I have read Ann Coulter though, but I didn't expect you'd like her
> either because she's the opposite to Moore, nor does she feel the
> need to make irrelevant documentaries which need to be edited around
> to fit the theme...
No; I dislike her because she has no qualms about making outrageous statements that have no facts or sources in support (I'm really looking forward to you trying to justify her assertion that Senator Joe Macarthy was, in fact, a true America hero, and NOT an alcoholic chancer who created the Anti-American hearings as a method of boosting his profile...), which are then lapped up without question by simpering fundamentalists who never bother to check their facts, and then repeat what she's said as gospel. You know; people like you.
For the record, Moore provides references and sources for every assertion he makes. Not that all of those sources are reliable (y'see, grown-ups tend to check the facts behind things before coming to an opinion of their own. Which is something you could learn about...), but he's at least trying. Bill O'Reilly is probably the best of the right wing american polemicists. At least he backs up what he says. Coulter is...well, to be honest, I've stopped taking her seriously. It's amusing to watch the reaction of some liberals to her fairy stories, and it's even more amusing to see who actually believes her (you should know that she's actually discredited in most Republican circles).
Erm...I don't much understand your criticism of the Oscar winning documentary either. Could you explain what you were trying to say there? I suspect you can't actually; you don't seem to really understand your own insults. Only it doesn't even read like an insult. Just a childish piece of petulance.
The Charlton Heston Interview was one of the highlights of Bowling For Columbine...
ACtually it got a little tiresome with all those candian interviews but it started brilliantly and ended equally well...
A great great film.
www.synae.com for my full review.
ACtually it got a little tiresome with all those candian interviews but it started brilliantly and ended equally well...
A great great film.
www.synae.com for my full review.
Bell, you've read the 1st page in Smiths and some Amazon reviews?
But...but you said that you had "Stupid White Men" on your shelf, along with "Deterring Democracy" by Chomsky...
Anyhoo, I personally like Moore but at the same time I don't take what he says as gospel.
But I find it ludicrous that people don't like him because he gets angry -what's wrong with being angry/passionate about a subject? I know if I was to make documentaries/write books I'd be red-faced and shouting at lung-busting volume. Hell, I do on here...or at least I used to.
Although some people may find it hard to believe, there are people out there that care enough to get angry, to want to shout about how screwed we are. There is a time for calmly talking and politely discussing things, and there is a time for standing on the steps screaming.
Because people don't listen to polite rhetoric, people aren't interested unless you are 2inches from their face like a Commie-Drill Instructor.
Politeness got us a war the population of...well..the world didn't want.
So get angry, get passionate.
Don't sit at your desks pontificating about how morally just somebody else is, when you do nothing yourself.
Michael Moore got where he is because he was made redundant, because he thought "Hang on, no" and got a camera and made a documentary about how his town was decimated by Ford Motors precisely because he *was* angry about this, and it's led to here.
You may not like him for being angry and shouting, but it beats sitting there sipping tea and doing nothing about the world.
Get out there, do something you believe in before you criticise others - because otherwise you sound like timid timewasters.
It's easy to pisss on somebody else's fire that it is to start your own.
But...but you said that you had "Stupid White Men" on your shelf, along with "Deterring Democracy" by Chomsky...
Anyhoo, I personally like Moore but at the same time I don't take what he says as gospel.
But I find it ludicrous that people don't like him because he gets angry -what's wrong with being angry/passionate about a subject? I know if I was to make documentaries/write books I'd be red-faced and shouting at lung-busting volume. Hell, I do on here...or at least I used to.
Although some people may find it hard to believe, there are people out there that care enough to get angry, to want to shout about how screwed we are. There is a time for calmly talking and politely discussing things, and there is a time for standing on the steps screaming.
Because people don't listen to polite rhetoric, people aren't interested unless you are 2inches from their face like a Commie-Drill Instructor.
Politeness got us a war the population of...well..the world didn't want.
So get angry, get passionate.
Don't sit at your desks pontificating about how morally just somebody else is, when you do nothing yourself.
Michael Moore got where he is because he was made redundant, because he thought "Hang on, no" and got a camera and made a documentary about how his town was decimated by Ford Motors precisely because he *was* angry about this, and it's led to here.
You may not like him for being angry and shouting, but it beats sitting there sipping tea and doing nothing about the world.
Get out there, do something you believe in before you criticise others - because otherwise you sound like timid timewasters.
It's easy to pisss on somebody else's fire that it is to start your own.
Page: