The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only.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:
Watched Roger And Me yesturday. Very good.
Belldandy wrote:
Because they are believable, and Moore is not.
My point:
How do you know, having never ever read anything he was written, and never having watched Bowling for Columbine?
How can you discuss or argue a point with complete ignorance of the source material? I'm not talking about what other websites have said, I'm asking how can you discuss Michael Moore's books at all, having never read them?
It makes no sense.
All you have done is read the opinions of other people reviewing it for Amazon (hardly a literary litmus test, go check David Hasselhoff's CD reviews) and anti-Moore websites.
How is what you are doing anymore justified as legitimate than should I go to anti-Bush websites?
You'd shrug my comments off and say "Big deal, anyone can write a website proving their point".
Honestly, between this, the Rush Limbaugh and crying because Insane Bartender did nothing except make jokes...it's kind of hard to take anything seriously you write.
You are arguing about Michael Moore's books.
You have never read a single one of them.
??
Because they are believable, and Moore is not.
My point:
How do you know, having never ever read anything he was written, and never having watched Bowling for Columbine?
How can you discuss or argue a point with complete ignorance of the source material? I'm not talking about what other websites have said, I'm asking how can you discuss Michael Moore's books at all, having never read them?
It makes no sense.
All you have done is read the opinions of other people reviewing it for Amazon (hardly a literary litmus test, go check David Hasselhoff's CD reviews) and anti-Moore websites.
How is what you are doing anymore justified as legitimate than should I go to anti-Bush websites?
You'd shrug my comments off and say "Big deal, anyone can write a website proving their point".
Honestly, between this, the Rush Limbaugh and crying because Insane Bartender did nothing except make jokes...it's kind of hard to take anything seriously you write.
You are arguing about Michael Moore's books.
You have never read a single one of them.
??
Hybrid-Halo wrote:
> I never read Moore's books purely because I am rather happy living my
> life ignorant to all the scheming going on behind closed doors.
>
> I'm scared that if I read his books I'll discover something that
> makes my happy life slightly less fluffy.
Heh. I bet Bush says the same things at meetings.
> I never read Moore's books purely because I am rather happy living my
> life ignorant to all the scheming going on behind closed doors.
>
> I'm scared that if I read his books I'll discover something that
> makes my happy life slightly less fluffy.
Heh. I bet Bush says the same things at meetings.
Hybrid-Halo wrote:
> I never read Moore's books purely because I am rather happy living my
> life ignorant to all the scheming going on behind closed doors.
>
> I'm scared that if I read his books I'll discover something that
> makes my happy life slightly less fluffy.
Heh. If only Bell could be so honest about himself...
> I never read Moore's books purely because I am rather happy living my
> life ignorant to all the scheming going on behind closed doors.
>
> I'm scared that if I read his books I'll discover something that
> makes my happy life slightly less fluffy.
Heh. If only Bell could be so honest about himself...
Good for you.
I never read Moore's books purely because I am rather happy living my life ignorant to all the scheming going on behind closed doors.
I'm scared that if I read his books I'll discover something that makes my happy life slightly less fluffy.
I'm scared that if I read his books I'll discover something that makes my happy life slightly less fluffy.
Belldandy wrote:
> How could I comment on sources I haven't seen? I simply asked if the
> NYT was one source, because I had seen it mentioned elsewhere as to
> the nature of the source. Should hell freeze over and I read his book
> then I'll give you an opinion on the sources.
Well, you're happy to give us an opinion of Moore without having read his book. And you were more than prepared to say that the sources from the New York Times were nothing but lies. So why back down now Bell? Is it dawning on you that you've made yourself look like a 3 week old bucket of menstrual blood clots?
>
> And it's good to be me actually, thanks very much.
Actually, yeah I can see it would be; I'd failed to take into account that ignorance is bliss.
> How could I comment on sources I haven't seen? I simply asked if the
> NYT was one source, because I had seen it mentioned elsewhere as to
> the nature of the source. Should hell freeze over and I read his book
> then I'll give you an opinion on the sources.
Well, you're happy to give us an opinion of Moore without having read his book. And you were more than prepared to say that the sources from the New York Times were nothing but lies. So why back down now Bell? Is it dawning on you that you've made yourself look like a 3 week old bucket of menstrual blood clots?
>
> And it's good to be me actually, thanks very much.
Actually, yeah I can see it would be; I'd failed to take into account that ignorance is bliss.
Light wrote:
> So...you've decided not to comment on the sources for the links
> between Dubya and bin Laden's family then? There IS a surprise; Bell,
> running wailing from a topic.
How could I comment on sources I haven't seen? I simply asked if the NYT was one source, because I had seen it mentioned elsewhere as to the nature of the source. Should hell freeze over and I read his book then I'll give you an opinion on the sources.
And it's good to be me actually, thanks very much.
> So...you've decided not to comment on the sources for the links
> between Dubya and bin Laden's family then? There IS a surprise; Bell,
> running wailing from a topic.
How could I comment on sources I haven't seen? I simply asked if the NYT was one source, because I had seen it mentioned elsewhere as to the nature of the source. Should hell freeze over and I read his book then I'll give you an opinion on the sources.
And it's good to be me actually, thanks very much.
monkey_man wrote:
> I didn't like his writing style, or some of his interview techniques
> either, but at least I took the time to actually read some of his
> work before I forged that opinion of him. That's why I'm not getting
> a slaying.
Exactly! You have your opinions of him, and you're willing to explain and justify them because they're based on your own experience. I would imagine I'll disagree with your criticisms of Moore, but I respect the fact that you've sat and thought about them. Bell has an opinion of him based on nothing more than what he was told to think, yet doesn't seem to understand why this makes him look unutterably stupid.
> I didn't like his writing style, or some of his interview techniques
> either, but at least I took the time to actually read some of his
> work before I forged that opinion of him. That's why I'm not getting
> a slaying.
Exactly! You have your opinions of him, and you're willing to explain and justify them because they're based on your own experience. I would imagine I'll disagree with your criticisms of Moore, but I respect the fact that you've sat and thought about them. Bell has an opinion of him based on nothing more than what he was told to think, yet doesn't seem to understand why this makes him look unutterably stupid.
So...you've decided not to comment on the sources for the links between Dubya and bin Laden's family then? There IS a surprise; Bell, running wailing from a topic.
So...you're mewling about how Moore is "unbelievable" despite never once having read or seen a single piece of his work? There's another surprise; Bell trying to comment with authority on something he knows nothing about.
So...you're avoiding addressing Blank's query about 'staging'? There's a third surprise; Bell behaving like a moral and intellectual coward.
So...you don't see how stupid you've made yourself look throughout this thread? Well, there's a final surprise; Bell taking refuge in self-important prissyness so that he doesn't have to confront the fact that he's regarded as a joke, and that the only person who takes him seriously is himself.
It must really suck to be you Bell.
So...you're mewling about how Moore is "unbelievable" despite never once having read or seen a single piece of his work? There's another surprise; Bell trying to comment with authority on something he knows nothing about.
So...you're avoiding addressing Blank's query about 'staging'? There's a third surprise; Bell behaving like a moral and intellectual coward.
So...you don't see how stupid you've made yourself look throughout this thread? Well, there's a final surprise; Bell taking refuge in self-important prissyness so that he doesn't have to confront the fact that he's regarded as a joke, and that the only person who takes him seriously is himself.
It must really suck to be you Bell.
Page: