The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
And whilst we're here, why was help rendered to the filming of Blackhawk Down (barely a positive depiction there).
There is nothing sinister in people refusing to help those who paint inaccurate pictures of an organisation (ala Crimson Tide and Navy Seals, to name but two).
There is nothing sinister in people refusing to help those who paint inaccurate pictures of an organisation (ala Crimson Tide and Navy Seals, to name but two).
Goatboy wrote:
> I haven't played C&C Generals, it's not my sort of game. But I
> did read the reviews showing concern about the content.
> So in what way is it witty, ironic and sarcastic?
Because it's all so cliche for a start. The US troops answer in exagerated ways and purposely have fewer responses (in other words they repeat catchphrases more often). The GLA side (terrorists) are depicted in certain ways, same for the Chinese. All the civilians are the same not matter where the battle is. It's the whole thing really, you have to play it to see it. You'd have to be a pretty narrow minded gamer to take it seriously in any respect.
Seeing as reviews concentrate on whether the game is worth buying then it is not really surprising that all that came out in them were the concerns of over sensitive journalists and moralists.
In the same way, very few reviews picked up the same kind of thing in GTA Vice City and, to a lesser extent, GTA3.
> I haven't played C&C Generals, it's not my sort of game. But I
> did read the reviews showing concern about the content.
> So in what way is it witty, ironic and sarcastic?
Because it's all so cliche for a start. The US troops answer in exagerated ways and purposely have fewer responses (in other words they repeat catchphrases more often). The GLA side (terrorists) are depicted in certain ways, same for the Chinese. All the civilians are the same not matter where the battle is. It's the whole thing really, you have to play it to see it. You'd have to be a pretty narrow minded gamer to take it seriously in any respect.
Seeing as reviews concentrate on whether the game is worth buying then it is not really surprising that all that came out in them were the concerns of over sensitive journalists and moralists.
In the same way, very few reviews picked up the same kind of thing in GTA Vice City and, to a lesser extent, GTA3.
Incidentally Bell, I note that you've avoided addressing the point that you've never read Michael Moore's books. I also see that you've backed away from trying to accuse Goaty of not reading Clancy. And now you've moved on to trying to mock people in the hope you'll be left alone.
For someone who can't be bothered, you sure put in a lot of effort.
For someone who can't be bothered, you sure put in a lot of effort.
Belldandy wrote:
> Except that was not referring to that point moron boy. What's wrong,
> the light shining out your ears blinding you ?
So what were you referring to? You said that you claimed;
>The US Military decides on a case by case basis
> whom and what it helps produce entertainment, fiction and
> non-fiction.
I am saying that you did not say that, and calling you a liar for claiming you did. So if you didn't say that, what did you say? Please, do clarify it. It's difficult to know what you meant when you refuse to offer any explaination.
> Except that was not referring to that point moron boy. What's wrong,
> the light shining out your ears blinding you ?
So what were you referring to? You said that you claimed;
>The US Military decides on a case by case basis
> whom and what it helps produce entertainment, fiction and
> non-fiction.
I am saying that you did not say that, and calling you a liar for claiming you did. So if you didn't say that, what did you say? Please, do clarify it. It's difficult to know what you meant when you refuse to offer any explaination.
Nice to see the complete avoidance/non quoting of my response to your idiocy Mr Dandy.
I shall claim that as acceptance that:
(a)you were wrong to argue the content of Michael Moore's books having never read any with those people that do and using deliberately anti-Moore sites to highlight arguments you have never read.
(b)you were wrong with your "read my post again", because you neglected to mention at any point the policy of a foreign military power's views on less-than 100% glowing depiction of their forces, it was only me talking about Crimson Tide whereas you simply said Clancy wrote "with the co-operation of", which has zero implication to general consensus of allowing co-operation
(c)you were wrong to say "So you've hardly read Clancy, if at all", when I started off by saying "I've only read a small part of one book and it wasn't my thing, which is why I don't argue content with you". An argument cannot be one person repeating exactly what was said originally and making it accusatory when that person's already put his hands up at the get-go.
----
And I'm waiting in the Life forum, in a topic you chose not to reply to because you don't have any way of continuing without plunging into the depths of "Damn, I can't back my original point up without admitting I was too quick to form judgement, better let the topic sink!" - so here's my polite request:
> And who play's C&C anymore ? It's not even decent, even Generals
> was crap, though I guessed you (like the media) missed the wit, irony
> and general sarcasm in the game eh ?
Oh THIS I would like explaining please.
I haven't played C&C Generals, it's not my sort of game. But I did read the reviews showing concern about the content.
So in what way is it witty, ironic and sarcastic?
And if that is the case, why would you like it - these are qualities sorely lacking in your Dr Strangelove existence.
---
And do you realise that saying "Well I would but what's the point because you'll just say COMMIE SMOKERS!!!!", is referring to posts made in mockery of you?
I fail to see how adopting the mannerisms originally depicted by Insane Bartender (that caused a massive red-faced spam frenzy, Little Miss Stampy-Foot) would help the perception people have of you as a humourless person with no sense of irony, sarcasm, wit or self-deprecation.
I shall claim that as acceptance that:
(a)you were wrong to argue the content of Michael Moore's books having never read any with those people that do and using deliberately anti-Moore sites to highlight arguments you have never read.
(b)you were wrong with your "read my post again", because you neglected to mention at any point the policy of a foreign military power's views on less-than 100% glowing depiction of their forces, it was only me talking about Crimson Tide whereas you simply said Clancy wrote "with the co-operation of", which has zero implication to general consensus of allowing co-operation
(c)you were wrong to say "So you've hardly read Clancy, if at all", when I started off by saying "I've only read a small part of one book and it wasn't my thing, which is why I don't argue content with you". An argument cannot be one person repeating exactly what was said originally and making it accusatory when that person's already put his hands up at the get-go.
----
And I'm waiting in the Life forum, in a topic you chose not to reply to because you don't have any way of continuing without plunging into the depths of "Damn, I can't back my original point up without admitting I was too quick to form judgement, better let the topic sink!" - so here's my polite request:
> And who play's C&C anymore ? It's not even decent, even Generals
> was crap, though I guessed you (like the media) missed the wit, irony
> and general sarcasm in the game eh ?
Oh THIS I would like explaining please.
I haven't played C&C Generals, it's not my sort of game. But I did read the reviews showing concern about the content.
So in what way is it witty, ironic and sarcastic?
And if that is the case, why would you like it - these are qualities sorely lacking in your Dr Strangelove existence.
---
And do you realise that saying "Well I would but what's the point because you'll just say COMMIE SMOKERS!!!!", is referring to posts made in mockery of you?
I fail to see how adopting the mannerisms originally depicted by Insane Bartender (that caused a massive red-faced spam frenzy, Little Miss Stampy-Foot) would help the perception people have of you as a humourless person with no sense of irony, sarcasm, wit or self-deprecation.
My point was, although you were making a humorous post, there is many a true word said in jest, and what you described was eerily similar to yourself in many ways.
Oh dear Blank, my humourless nature infected you as well ?
Exchange communist for capitalist, hammer and sickle for stars and stripes, cigarettes for army figurines, and Stupid White Men for any Tom Clancy you fancy and that's an accurate description of yourself.
And you actually DO have the stars and stripes watching over you while you sleep at night...
And you actually DO have the stars and stripes watching over you while you sleep at night...
PS Thou art all evil Communists marching under the hammer and sickle witrh armfuls of cigarettes and copies of Stupid White Men clutched to your chests like a shield.
Light wrote:
> Read what I said. The US Military decides on a case by case basis
> whom and what it helps produce entertainment, fiction and
> non-fiction.
>
> No you didn't; you said no such thing. Or, to put it another way,
> you're lying through your teeth again.
Except that was not referring to that point moron boy. What's wrong, the light shining out your ears blinding you ?
> Read what I said. The US Military decides on a case by case basis
> whom and what it helps produce entertainment, fiction and
> non-fiction.
>
> No you didn't; you said no such thing. Or, to put it another way,
> you're lying through your teeth again.
Except that was not referring to that point moron boy. What's wrong, the light shining out your ears blinding you ?
Page: