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.

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 ?

Belldandy wrote:
> I of course demand that proof be provided first of every factual
> statement made by every single person in this topic, because Light is
> like that.
---

Ah.
You seem to have missed the point.
Again.

I asked for proof of your claims that I had discussed content of Tom Clancy's books.
Because you repeatedly said that I have, you have spent 2 lengthy posts arguing that I have.
I asked for you to show me.
You can't.
Because I didn't.

End. Of. Story.

Belldandy wrote:
> I have said I will not further refer to him.

The only time you have said anything remotely like that is when you realised you were generally getting a lashing from everyone here except...well, only yourself, and decided to say "I'm not carrying this on anymore". Not, "Yes, I was wrong, I can't argue about things I haven't read and seen," but simply "This is useless, I'm not carrying on."

Because you can't, and you realised it. And you *STILL* won't admit that you're wrong.

Belldandy wrote:
> Summary:
>
> I have said many times I have not read Moore.
>
> I have said I will not further refer to him.

So again, what are we actually arguing here that was not in my summary ?

You haven't covered it. Not at all.

Goatboy is saying "I won't try and argue, you've read Clancy and I haven't."

You're saying "Moore is a liar, he's avoided many issues and here! some websites that prove it. But I'd never actually read his trash."


You're missing the vital element, which is that you have to do one before the other. In this case, you have to actually read a book before you can slate it.

Which I've covered, see the summary. So what still actually is the contention here ?

The difference being that Goatboy hasn't tried to argue that Tom Clancy is a terrible author and avoids issues.

Summary:

I have said many times I have not read Moore.

I have said I will not further refer to him.

Goatboy has admitted he has not read Clancy.

Goatboy has said his comments on Clancy came from perceptions, similarly I have said the same of my commenrts about Moore.

I have said my questions about his work comes from what others mention in other books.

So what are we actually talking about ? Because given the above statements I don't see what the problem actually is now.

gamezfreak wrote:
> Heh.
>
> It beggars beleif on how a topic on a book turns into a full scale
> arguement with Belldandy.
>
> Meh. The usual then.

Heh. Aye well, I just asked him to explain how he can criticise someone when he's never read their books or seen their films. Whereas you or I might go "Ah, yeah you've got me there. Maybe I don't know everything about him", Bell seems determined to carry on trying to say he knows about Moore even though he...well, doesn't know about Moore.

Or, in other words, the usual. Maybe I should start to feel guilty about not letting him get away with his lying...

Heh.

It beggars beleif on how a topic on a book turns into a full scale arguement with Belldandy.

Meh. The usual then.