The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
It's funny watching Belldandy reply mentioning only Tom Clancy.
Belldandy wrote:
>
> Goatboy wrote:
> Ok.
> So that makes him a mouthpiece for the US Government, you could
> argue
> that his books are little more than propaganda designed to portray
> American Forces in a positive, heroic light
>
> The two would seem to contradict each other, no ?
Not really. He posted that in response to your post, which said;
> b)not all of his books are fiction and he has a whole series which
> were done with the full co-operation of the US Military/Navy/Air
> Force, DOD, Special Ops and so forth.
So his non-fiction books were about the US military. Which is part of the US government. Hence the 'mouthpiece' comment, which you've taken as derogatory, is accurate.
Also (and I have pointed this out, but you in your intellectual cowardice have chosen to ignore this) that saying, for example "You COULD SAY that that Belldandy is a gutless bucket of menstrual waste" is a world away from saying "Belldandy IS a bucket of menstrual waste". The latter is a statement, the former is nothing more than a supposition. When one makes a definite statement about something, it's traditional to have facts and a knowledge of the subject to back it up.
>
> 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.
Gutless coward; you'll try anything to avoid admitting that you've made a complete and utter nobweasel of yourself. So lets get back to the original point that you're desperate to avoid;
You are making a lot of specific statements criticising Michael Moore. Yet you have never read or seen a single piece of his work, so you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. Cretin.
>
> Goatboy wrote:
> Ok.
> So that makes him a mouthpiece for the US Government, you could
> argue
> that his books are little more than propaganda designed to portray
> American Forces in a positive, heroic light
>
> The two would seem to contradict each other, no ?
Not really. He posted that in response to your post, which said;
> b)not all of his books are fiction and he has a whole series which
> were done with the full co-operation of the US Military/Navy/Air
> Force, DOD, Special Ops and so forth.
So his non-fiction books were about the US military. Which is part of the US government. Hence the 'mouthpiece' comment, which you've taken as derogatory, is accurate.
Also (and I have pointed this out, but you in your intellectual cowardice have chosen to ignore this) that saying, for example "You COULD SAY that that Belldandy is a gutless bucket of menstrual waste" is a world away from saying "Belldandy IS a bucket of menstrual waste". The latter is a statement, the former is nothing more than a supposition. When one makes a definite statement about something, it's traditional to have facts and a knowledge of the subject to back it up.
>
> 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.
Gutless coward; you'll try anything to avoid admitting that you've made a complete and utter nobweasel of yourself. So lets get back to the original point that you're desperate to avoid;
You are making a lot of specific statements criticising Michael Moore. Yet you have never read or seen a single piece of his work, so you have absolutely NO idea what you're talking about. Cretin.
Belldandy wrote:
> The two would seem to contradict each other, no ?
Nothing contradicts at all Bell.
You haven't read Michael Moore yet have argued the content of his books using websites written by other people to bolster arguments for source material you have never read.
I'm not discussing Tom Clancy, because I've read negligible amounts and have, at no point whatsoever, argued the content of his books.
But you are concentrating desperately on the one aspect you think doesn't make you look, again, like an ill-informed poster trying to save face when people have, repeatedly, pointed out you have no idea what you are talking about with Michael Moore.
Tom Clancy doesn't enter into it at all. I have at no point argued the contents of his books, because I am for the most part unfamiliar with them.
Do you see how that works?
> 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.
At no point have you said anything of the like.
The only thing you have said in regards to the US Military's attitude towards helping entertainment etc is
"b)not all of his books are fiction and he has a whole series which were done with the full co-operation of the US Military/Navy/Air Force, DOD, Special Ops and so forth"
The ONLY mention of the US assitance with entertainment purposes came from me, myself and I pointing out that Tony Scott had to steal footage because the script was deemed not entirely glowing in it's depiction of US Naval Admirality.
You didn't until that point.
But it's reassuring to know that you are entirely familiar with the policies and practices of the miltary of a foreign state granting access priviliges to the entertainment industry.
I shall note this knowledge for future reference, as well as your regularly stated insider-knowledge of the workings of the CIA, White House and foreign policies in regards to the Middle Eastern conflict.
Christ, you don't even remember what you're arguing about do you in your attempts to not look like an ass.
Well, sorry to say (and the 4-5 pages of comments here at you demonstrate) that you failed in this regards
But I'll repeat clearly and slowly, and feel free to ignore/not quote this part:
You have been arguing the content of Michael Moore books with people that have read them, using various anti-Moore websites that serve whatever points you think are relevant.
Except they're not relevant.
Because you haven't read a single book or seen one single documentary from Moore.
Oh, and just in case you didn't understand?
The *only* reason people laugh at your mentioning of Tom Clancy is because you treat his WORKS OF FICTION as some historical documents.
Because you are an idiot.
That really is the size of it.
Feel free to ignore the parts pointing out your lack of knowledge on Michael Moore and concentrate on Tom Clancy and trying to salvage some dignity from semantics.
> The two would seem to contradict each other, no ?
Nothing contradicts at all Bell.
You haven't read Michael Moore yet have argued the content of his books using websites written by other people to bolster arguments for source material you have never read.
I'm not discussing Tom Clancy, because I've read negligible amounts and have, at no point whatsoever, argued the content of his books.
But you are concentrating desperately on the one aspect you think doesn't make you look, again, like an ill-informed poster trying to save face when people have, repeatedly, pointed out you have no idea what you are talking about with Michael Moore.
Tom Clancy doesn't enter into it at all. I have at no point argued the contents of his books, because I am for the most part unfamiliar with them.
Do you see how that works?
> 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.
At no point have you said anything of the like.
The only thing you have said in regards to the US Military's attitude towards helping entertainment etc is
"b)not all of his books are fiction and he has a whole series which were done with the full co-operation of the US Military/Navy/Air Force, DOD, Special Ops and so forth"
The ONLY mention of the US assitance with entertainment purposes came from me, myself and I pointing out that Tony Scott had to steal footage because the script was deemed not entirely glowing in it's depiction of US Naval Admirality.
You didn't until that point.
But it's reassuring to know that you are entirely familiar with the policies and practices of the miltary of a foreign state granting access priviliges to the entertainment industry.
I shall note this knowledge for future reference, as well as your regularly stated insider-knowledge of the workings of the CIA, White House and foreign policies in regards to the Middle Eastern conflict.
Christ, you don't even remember what you're arguing about do you in your attempts to not look like an ass.
Well, sorry to say (and the 4-5 pages of comments here at you demonstrate) that you failed in this regards
But I'll repeat clearly and slowly, and feel free to ignore/not quote this part:
You have been arguing the content of Michael Moore books with people that have read them, using various anti-Moore websites that serve whatever points you think are relevant.
Except they're not relevant.
Because you haven't read a single book or seen one single documentary from Moore.
Oh, and just in case you didn't understand?
The *only* reason people laugh at your mentioning of Tom Clancy is because you treat his WORKS OF FICTION as some historical documents.
Because you are an idiot.
That really is the size of it.
Feel free to ignore the parts pointing out your lack of knowledge on Michael Moore and concentrate on Tom Clancy and trying to salvage some dignity from semantics.
Goatboy wrote:
> *wags finger*
> No Mr Dandy, you are not turning this into "Goatboy hasn't read
> Tom Clancy!!!!".
> I said I've only read part of one, and then only slightly.
>
> However, you have been shown in this thread to be once again talking
> complete nonsense.
> I haven't claimed to have read Clancy.
> And please, the US government do not comply or offer information to
> ANY form of entertainment unless it shows them in an absolutely
> glorious light.
> They wouldn't even co-operate with Crimson Tide because they thought
> it was a bit nasty, so Tony Scott was forced to steal shots of a sub
> whilst it was on manouvres in the North Atlantic.
>
> You have sneered and dismissed Michael Moore, used anti-Moore sites
> to bolster your arguments without being aware of any of his work.
> You have argued for over a week about the content of Moore's books
> with those that have read them, whereas you have not.
> You have ignored the reams of comments here, and focused on the one
> aspect you think you can twist and claim victory on, like a drowning
> man clutching a life-preserver.
>
> This isn't about my ADMITTED lack of Tom Clancy reading, this is
> about you being dumb enough to argue the contents of books by an
> author you have never read with people that have.
>
> You tool.
Goatboy wrote:
> Ok.
> So that makes him a mouthpiece for the US Government, you could argue
> that his books are little more than propaganda designed to portray
> American Forces in a positive, heroic light
The two would seem to contradict each other, no ?
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.
> *wags finger*
> No Mr Dandy, you are not turning this into "Goatboy hasn't read
> Tom Clancy!!!!".
> I said I've only read part of one, and then only slightly.
>
> However, you have been shown in this thread to be once again talking
> complete nonsense.
> I haven't claimed to have read Clancy.
> And please, the US government do not comply or offer information to
> ANY form of entertainment unless it shows them in an absolutely
> glorious light.
> They wouldn't even co-operate with Crimson Tide because they thought
> it was a bit nasty, so Tony Scott was forced to steal shots of a sub
> whilst it was on manouvres in the North Atlantic.
>
> You have sneered and dismissed Michael Moore, used anti-Moore sites
> to bolster your arguments without being aware of any of his work.
> You have argued for over a week about the content of Moore's books
> with those that have read them, whereas you have not.
> You have ignored the reams of comments here, and focused on the one
> aspect you think you can twist and claim victory on, like a drowning
> man clutching a life-preserver.
>
> This isn't about my ADMITTED lack of Tom Clancy reading, this is
> about you being dumb enough to argue the contents of books by an
> author you have never read with people that have.
>
> You tool.
Goatboy wrote:
> Ok.
> So that makes him a mouthpiece for the US Government, you could argue
> that his books are little more than propaganda designed to portray
> American Forces in a positive, heroic light
The two would seem to contradict each other, no ?
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.
Tops. Please do let me know what your opinion of it is if you do.
I might read the book you mention...
Light wrote:
> ACTUALLY doing that? Uh-uh. The only mention made by Goatboy is of
> the filming of Red October,
Or Crimson Tide even. Cah; a perfectly good dig at Bell ruined by lack of attentiveness....
> ACTUALLY doing that? Uh-uh. The only mention made by Goatboy is of
> the filming of Red October,
Or Crimson Tide even. Cah; a perfectly good dig at Bell ruined by lack of attentiveness....
Belldandy wrote:
> So if you want to continue believing what you typed then go ahead, I
> may be talking about Moore without having read any of his, but now
> you're doing just the same.
~points and laughs~
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA! You're so desperate to change the subject away from your ignorance that it's untrue!!
Which part of this statement do you have trouble with: He has only read a little bit of one book.
How about this statement: You could argue he is a mouthpiece of the US govt.
Note that word; COULD. Or, in other words, rhetorically speaking one could argue that he is biased toward the US government. Is he ACTUALLY doing that? Uh-uh. The only mention made by Goatboy is of the filming of Red October, and what he mentions is a fact about the filming. Nothing more, nothing less. But you're so desperate to change the subject and stop people seeing you getting your ass spanked that you're not about to let mere facts get in the way, are you?
Oh, and I note you haven't addressed the fact that I have indeed read Clancy. I'm happy to discuss his books with you if you'd care to start a thread doing so.
> So if you want to continue believing what you typed then go ahead, I
> may be talking about Moore without having read any of his, but now
> you're doing just the same.
~points and laughs~
AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAAAA! You're so desperate to change the subject away from your ignorance that it's untrue!!
Which part of this statement do you have trouble with: He has only read a little bit of one book.
How about this statement: You could argue he is a mouthpiece of the US govt.
Note that word; COULD. Or, in other words, rhetorically speaking one could argue that he is biased toward the US government. Is he ACTUALLY doing that? Uh-uh. The only mention made by Goatboy is of the filming of Red October, and what he mentions is a fact about the filming. Nothing more, nothing less. But you're so desperate to change the subject and stop people seeing you getting your ass spanked that you're not about to let mere facts get in the way, are you?
Oh, and I note you haven't addressed the fact that I have indeed read Clancy. I'm happy to discuss his books with you if you'd care to start a thread doing so.
*wags finger*
No Mr Dandy, you are not turning this into "Goatboy hasn't read Tom Clancy!!!!".
I said I've only read part of one, and then only slightly.
However, you have been shown in this thread to be once again talking complete nonsense.
I haven't claimed to have read Clancy.
And please, the US government do not comply or offer information to ANY form of entertainment unless it shows them in an absolutely glorious light.
They wouldn't even co-operate with Crimson Tide because they thought it was a bit nasty, so Tony Scott was forced to steal shots of a sub whilst it was on manouvres in the North Atlantic.
You have sneered and dismissed Michael Moore, used anti-Moore sites to bolster your arguments without being aware of any of his work.
You have argued for over a week about the content of Moore's books with those that have read them, whereas you have not.
You have ignored the reams of comments here, and focused on the one aspect you think you can twist and claim victory on, like a drowning man clutching a life-preserver.
This isn't about my ADMITTED lack of Tom Clancy reading, this is about you being dumb enough to argue the contents of books by an author you have never read with people that have.
You tool.
No Mr Dandy, you are not turning this into "Goatboy hasn't read Tom Clancy!!!!".
I said I've only read part of one, and then only slightly.
However, you have been shown in this thread to be once again talking complete nonsense.
I haven't claimed to have read Clancy.
And please, the US government do not comply or offer information to ANY form of entertainment unless it shows them in an absolutely glorious light.
They wouldn't even co-operate with Crimson Tide because they thought it was a bit nasty, so Tony Scott was forced to steal shots of a sub whilst it was on manouvres in the North Atlantic.
You have sneered and dismissed Michael Moore, used anti-Moore sites to bolster your arguments without being aware of any of his work.
You have argued for over a week about the content of Moore's books with those that have read them, whereas you have not.
You have ignored the reams of comments here, and focused on the one aspect you think you can twist and claim victory on, like a drowning man clutching a life-preserver.
This isn't about my ADMITTED lack of Tom Clancy reading, this is about you being dumb enough to argue the contents of books by an author you have never read with people that have.
You tool.
Goatboy wrote:
> Ok.
> So that makes him a mouthpiece for the US Government, you could argue
> that his books are little more than propaganda designed to portray
> American Forces in a positive, heroic light.
Except they do not. Which you would know if you had read them. His non-fiction books, whilst done with the help of those whom the topic concerns, are often highly critical of those same same organisations.
Similarly, his fiction works are not what you say they are. Often the theme is one of avoiding war, preventing conflicts from occuring, of a military that is not ready to deal with the challenges of a new world, nor are they disrespectful to the "enemies" in them - The Sum Of All Fears went into some detail as to the background of the terrorists and what had happened to their familes, what motivated them, and so on. The same can be said for other enemies in the other books. They are people, nations or groups acting with reasons which are valid to them.
Hell, Clear and Present Danger was an indictment of US actions in South America and the Drug War, and you want to call his books propoganda ?
The Dragon and The Bear concentrated mostly - on a military level - on the Russian military repelling a Chinese invasion.
Executive Orders had the way in which political powergames can undermine policy and security as a theme.
Rainbow Six featured a collection of nations.
Patriot Games showed the way in which some Americans supported and believed that groups like the IRA were right in their cause.
Without Remorse focused on the issue of POW's left behind and forgotten by America.
So if you want to continue believing what you typed then go ahead, I may be talking about Moore without having read any of his, but now you're doing just the same.
> Ok.
> So that makes him a mouthpiece for the US Government, you could argue
> that his books are little more than propaganda designed to portray
> American Forces in a positive, heroic light.
Except they do not. Which you would know if you had read them. His non-fiction books, whilst done with the help of those whom the topic concerns, are often highly critical of those same same organisations.
Similarly, his fiction works are not what you say they are. Often the theme is one of avoiding war, preventing conflicts from occuring, of a military that is not ready to deal with the challenges of a new world, nor are they disrespectful to the "enemies" in them - The Sum Of All Fears went into some detail as to the background of the terrorists and what had happened to their familes, what motivated them, and so on. The same can be said for other enemies in the other books. They are people, nations or groups acting with reasons which are valid to them.
Hell, Clear and Present Danger was an indictment of US actions in South America and the Drug War, and you want to call his books propoganda ?
The Dragon and The Bear concentrated mostly - on a military level - on the Russian military repelling a Chinese invasion.
Executive Orders had the way in which political powergames can undermine policy and security as a theme.
Rainbow Six featured a collection of nations.
Patriot Games showed the way in which some Americans supported and believed that groups like the IRA were right in their cause.
Without Remorse focused on the issue of POW's left behind and forgotten by America.
So if you want to continue believing what you typed then go ahead, I may be talking about Moore without having read any of his, but now you're doing just the same.
Page: