Christopher Hitchens has a devastating review of Michael Moore’s Fahrenheit 9/11 on Slate. He begins with a few words of description:
To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
Hitchens then offers a crushing rebuke to Moore’s (and the Left in general’s) theory that Saddam really wasn’t a problem. The paragraph where he details Iraq’s role as haven for Abu Nadel, haven for Zarqawi after 9/11, its daily violations of UN Resolutions wrought by firing into the "No Fly Zone," and Saddam’s negotiations with N. Korea to purchase a weapons systems is too long to reprint here, but is worth reading.
Hitchens concludes with what should be a knockout punch to those who support Moore’s philosophy based on what they believe is best for the collected nations:
If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD.
Do read the whole article.
Tell me, Alt. Are you getting tired? With the Conservative spin machine working overtime this week, I’ve got to think its taking a toll on you and your brethren.
Starbuck: As usual, what you lack in wit you make up for in political posturing. Perhaps next time you can actually try addressing the substance of the post, which in this case would be the arguments of the linked article. By your statement, I suppose Chris Hitchens, who just finished a screed against Reagan, is part of the conservative spin machine. Pllleease. I would like to see you say that laughable statement to his face.
No, Robert - I was referring to you. Honestly, did you even bother reading my comment before spouting off? As usual, what you lack in intelligence, you make up for in political posturing.
BTW, do you guys ever form your own opinions on anything, or will you be forever content to let others speak for you?
Though, I have no idea exactly what we are supposed to look for. You have failed to prove your point.
How did he change your post?
In defense of Professor Moser (In my day, we still used terms of respect when referring to educators -- regardless of our personal views of those professors), I have to say that Starbuck has opened my eyes to a new kind of liberal – she appears to be opposed to revisionist history.
I, for one, support their First Amendment Right to publish -- or not publish -- as they see fit. If you are opposed to that, you are always able to exercise your right not to respond. It seems that the entire thing was just a silly little joke and was removed promptly. If you are suggesting that the Ashbrook Center should not have the ability to edit postings if they are offensive or improper, then you should give up now – because that line of thinking ‘ain’t gonna fly’ with the editors. I, for one, fully support censorship, especially if someone were to link to photographs of Professor Schramm doing the ‘sexy fat man dance’ in his skivvies.
Generally, I’m not a fan of bear-baiting, so I’ll not respond any further to this line of conversation (call me whatever you will -- I’ll at least spare others the exposure to my ranting).
And now that I’ve been educated in the full etymology of the nom de net "Starbuck" -- I’ll make no comparisons between bitter coffee beans and bitter liberals. I would never wish to be so offensive to the author’s sensibilities or the bean’s successful capitalist philosophy.
Professors Moser, Schramm, Alt, et. al., have a nice summer.
If you are suggesting that the Ashbrook Center should not have the ability to edit postings if they are offensive or improper, then you should give up now – because that line of thinking ‘ain’t gonna fly’ with the editors
There was nothing offensive or improper about my message. Nor was there anything offensive about my response to E. Michael Kajca above, which Moser also removed in an effort to cover his tracks.
Starbuck: Enough. Nobody cares. Your personal grievances and inane diatribes interest nobody. Have you nothing of genuine substance to contribute to any discussion?
I, for one, would like to see Schramm doing his "sexy, fat man dance." I mean, the way he rides that hogg and speaks Hungarian on the website - oo, la, la! And, all you need to get him to do it is a little Irish whiskey and some Yeats. In that case, I am against censorship. As for Starbuck, sip a latte and chill out.
rbuck: Enough. Nobody cares. Your personal grievances and inane diatribes interest nobody. Have you nothing of genuine substance to contribute to any discussion?
Does it occur to you that that’s a bit difficult to do when you’ve got somebody on the "other side" who can’t debate without having the advantage of being able to modify your posts?
Didn’t think so...
This naked fat man dance gives me a fundraising idea...anyone see the Full Monty? We’ll call this the Schramm Slam. $10 to get in then we sell blindfolds for $1,000 each.
Poor Peter’s naked body is being dragged through the mud - wait a minute, maybe we can charge $5,000 NOT to see him mudwrestle with Starbuck for the political ideology championship!
I have nothing to actually say, other than the simple fact (or what I take for one) that Bush the conservatives...et al are conspiring to turn the United States into a society where the few plunder the many. The Ashbrook Center is predominately in on the entire scam, and helps to weave webs of deceit in rubric passing for thought, so rather than engage in conversation and fall into such a trap, I selflessly spend untold hours waiting for them to show any animosity towards the current system of things in which everybody plunders everybody.
In case the above post was not clear I favor a system in which everyone plunders everyone.
This is the system we currently have in place. A system with a long tradition dating back to slavery and protective tarrifs.
Of course I am absolutely opposed to slavery, I believe in paying reparations and affirmative action. I am opposed to economic slavery and I favor a minimum wage that is also a living wage.
I believe that it matters who holds a political office, because the aims of holding political office is plunder.
I believe that more women and more minorities need to hold political office so that like the "white man" before him they can negotiate their own benefits package.
I support public schools and progressive taxation. Why should it be illegal if it is the general will? Why should it not be the general will appart from the spinning and lies of the conservatives?
Furthermore I think that the word "plunder" is a conservative spin. How can it be plunder if it is legal?
If John Moser decides to steal my money and donate it to the Ashbrook Center then this is plunder! If the Federal Government decides to tax John Moser and pay UN dues this in accordance with the law! If the federal government taxes Tony Williams and pays for planned parenthood this is one thing, it does not matter that Tony Williams opposes planned parenthood and abortions. A portion of his money is not his to decide what to do with! It is my right to vote for people that will take even more money from Tony Williams, but it would not be right for Tony Williams to pay a burglar to steal my favorite coffee mug!
Since somebody removed my last post, I will once again state that I did not post comments #13 and #14.
Whoever is playing these games should be ashamed of themselves. For my part, I can say that NLT has lost ALL SENSE OF CREDIBILITY.
Hey, I’m the real Starbuck, and I didn’t post this, either!
I’m the real Starbuck
No, you’re not! I am!
I’m Starbuck, and so is my wife!