| The Mark(ings) of Zorro |
|
More ruminations, rambles, rants and raves from the downhill side of the mountain.
Just so you know exactly where I stand vis-a-vis today's polarized politics, let me recommend this organization to you.
And I also recommend my gentle employer to you as well. The Barnes & Noble Affiliate Network, which seemed to have stopped working, is back in operation, so the links and banners are working again.   Now, go buy some books. Links:
My Other Blogs, Journals and suchFox Den: Creative (i.e. Fiction)Writing A Pilgrim's Progress Business/Economics/Future Studies and other Social SciencesIan's Knowledge Modelling Weblog Future Scan: Future Studies Department University of Houston at Clear Lake PLSJ (aka Anne, the Anthropologist) link InternationalLost in Transit link New Jersey New York Pennsylvania and DelawareCoffee Grounds Traveling in Style Slacktivist Recommended with a bullet! Hoofin To You: Bridgewater, NJ politics Inadmissible Evidence Personal/GeneralBig Black Van Overflow In Spite of Years of Silence Metamorphosism (Mig's new blog) Real Live Preacher Blogs with AttitudeSkippy the Bush Kangaroo Alas, A Blog A Fistful of Euros BuzzMachine Eschaton Pedantry The Poor Man Barefoot and Naked Boing Boing Craigblog Fafglob The Road to Surfdom link E-Mail Me
Syndication has arrived. Subscribe to A Pilgrim's Progress And finally, here are a few books I might recommend for your edification and amazement.
|
Friday, July 09, 2004
Jame Lileks takes Michael Moore to task today in a piece that looks suspiciously like a magazine article for the New Republic or some similar rag. First let me be perfectly candid in saying that I have not seen the movie, Farenheit 9/11...yet. I will get around to it at some point because such a polarizing cultural event must be sampled in person. However, from what I understand, the actual facts in the movie aren't really in question. It is the slant, spin or opinion Mr. Moore draws from the presented facts that is the cause of most of the angst. And it is probably very true that Mr. Moore cherry picked the facts he wanted to use; much like the right did all during the Clinton Presidency. Here's my take on all this. First, Mr. Lileks is only feeding the beast when he engages in such a long drawn out attack on Mr. Moore. I'm not a Moore partisan, but I don't hate the man either. And I can say that nothing in Lilek's piece persuaded me to join the ranks of those who do dislike Mr. Moore (as, obviously, Mr. Lileks does.) Moore is out to rally the troops...and bring into the anti-Bush camp as many of those sitting on the fence as possible. Persons who do what Mr. Moore now feels called to do do not want to engage in calm, reasoned debate. They want to fan the flames and get people moving. The more commotion he causes, the better he is doing his "job". However, sooner or later the real focus of the campaign for the White House is going to have to start focusing on the same thing the Conservatives focused on from 1996 through 2000: Presidential lies. Clinton lied about his sex life. Bush lies about everything but his sex life. Clinton's lies did not cost the lives of our military men (there--that takes Foster's suicide out of play) while American soldiers pay with their lives for Bush's lies every day. I have to say that, since Watergate and the ensuing attack upon Richard Nixon, politics in this country have been going from bad to worse. Michael Moore is the brother-under-the-skin of all those shrill conservative attack dogs (Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter et al) who have been fouling the waters of American politics for much of the past decade. I want to see both sets of extremes quietly shuffled off the American Stage so that slightly more temperate voices could be heard.
|