I can count on your journal, Brad, to bring in interesting commentary, no matter what the subject. So here's my $0.02 ;)
I read the webpage you linked to on bowlingforthetruth.com, and forced myself to read the entire page before jumping back here with guns blazing, (which was a big effort for me as soon as I knew he was attacking Moore, because I really like Moore, dammit, and I think that he is doing something very important, i.e. representing the opposite end, which pulls the median back towards neutral- he isn't TRYING to be unbiased, he is trying to be biased in the opposite direction to balance the tension, and I LOVE HIM FOR IT) but when I read this Jonah Goldberg bitching about how at least HE is trying to represent the truth and be fair and unbiased, and shouldn't we all love him for that, blah blah blah, and how he is "tired of ideologue spinners like Moore... perpetuating this scare tactic propaganda to gain popularity," but then titles his simplistic dichotomy chart (which I never trust anyway, because a simple This/That diagram immediately sets off Propaganda bells with me) with the headers:
"Michael Moore: Conspiracy theorist left wing spinner who wants you to think the Bush administration is the Gestapo"
and
"Jonah Goldberg: Sober thinking right wing editor of National Review Online who wants you to know the truth"
I can't believe someone can be so hypocritical and stand to look at themselves in the mirror. It makes me completely discount this man's opinion because he is so clearly dishonest even to the people he is trying to convince. At least Michael Moore is upfront about his techniques and what he is trying to accomplish- i.e. to represent the opposite end. He never claims to be the voice of middle-of-the-road neutralism, I don't think anyone in journalism who has any kind of integrity or intelligence could ever even try to claim that they are being unbiased.
And as one of the few Americans who has also read the Patriot Act (what can I say, I have a lot of time on my hands between classes, might as well get hopping mad, it makes the time fly) I am well aware of the references that both men are making to the document, but the problem with this "point counterpoint" is that Jonah is not providing counterpoint, he is simply trying to debunk Moore by relying on semantics and the inattentiveness of the reader.
Let's look at just the first item in the Moore vs. Goldberg (FIGHT!) chart: When Moore says that the government could access anything from email to library accounts to medical records, it is entirely true. Goldberg has no leg to stand on here, and it would seem that he knows it. The blanket statement in the Act "documents from third parties" is sufficiently vague as to support any of these assertions- Moore cited specific examples to show people how serious the matter is, and how this document has been written ostensibly with the goal of allowing as much lenience in the definitions as possible. To the government, everyone is a third party. Goldberg's attempt at rebuttal is to simply go back to the euphemistic term used in the document itself and to claim that "the section doesn't even mention libraries..." Congratulations, Jackass. You are absolutely right, the document doesn't list every single 'third party' it would be able to access. That would put restrictions on it, wouldn't it? That is what Moore is saying, you moron! Goldberg isn't counterpointing the document, he is attempting to counterpoint Moore, and that is pointless unless you are trying to defame someone, the very behavior he supposedly abhores and admonishes Moore for doing. I could go through every single one of his little "Here's the truth" statements and tear them apart, but I think you get the idea.
Who is the idealogue spinner, again?
Man, I write longer comments to you than some of my own journal entries, Brad! You really seem to know how to get me typing, don't you? ;P
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
timeasmymeasure
no subject
Date: 2003-10-22 12:10 am (UTC)I read the webpage you linked to on bowlingforthetruth.com, and forced myself to read the entire page before jumping back here with guns blazing, (which was a big effort for me as soon as I knew he was attacking Moore, because I really like Moore, dammit, and I think that he is doing something very important, i.e. representing the opposite end, which pulls the median back towards neutral- he isn't TRYING to be unbiased, he is trying to be biased in the opposite direction to balance the tension, and I LOVE HIM FOR IT) but when I read this Jonah Goldberg bitching about how at least HE is trying to represent the truth and be fair and unbiased, and shouldn't we all love him for that, blah blah blah, and how he is "tired of ideologue spinners like Moore... perpetuating this scare tactic propaganda to gain popularity," but then titles his simplistic dichotomy chart (which I never trust anyway, because a simple This/That diagram immediately sets off Propaganda bells with me) with the headers:
"Michael Moore: Conspiracy theorist left wing spinner who wants you to think the Bush administration is the Gestapo"
and
"Jonah Goldberg: Sober thinking right wing editor of National Review Online who wants you to know the truth"
I can't believe someone can be so hypocritical and stand to look at themselves in the mirror. It makes me completely discount this man's opinion because he is so clearly dishonest even to the people he is trying to convince. At least Michael Moore is upfront about his techniques and what he is trying to accomplish- i.e. to represent the opposite end. He never claims to be the voice of middle-of-the-road neutralism, I don't think anyone in journalism who has any kind of integrity or intelligence could ever even try to claim that they are being unbiased.
And as one of the few Americans who has also read the Patriot Act (what can I say, I have a lot of time on my hands between classes, might as well get hopping mad, it makes the time fly) I am well aware of the references that both men are making to the document, but the problem with this "point counterpoint" is that Jonah is not providing counterpoint, he is simply trying to debunk Moore by relying on semantics and the inattentiveness of the reader.
Let's look at just the first item in the Moore vs. Goldberg (FIGHT!) chart: When Moore says that the government could access anything from email to library accounts to medical records, it is entirely true. Goldberg has no leg to stand on here, and it would seem that he knows it. The blanket statement in the Act "documents from third parties" is sufficiently vague as to support any of these assertions- Moore cited specific examples to show people how serious the matter is, and how this document has been written ostensibly with the goal of allowing as much lenience in the definitions as possible. To the government, everyone is a third party. Goldberg's attempt at rebuttal is to simply go back to the euphemistic term used in the document itself and to claim that "the section doesn't even mention libraries..." Congratulations, Jackass. You are absolutely right, the document doesn't list every single 'third party' it would be able to access. That would put restrictions on it, wouldn't it? That is what Moore is saying, you moron! Goldberg isn't counterpointing the document, he is attempting to counterpoint Moore, and that is pointless unless you are trying to defame someone, the very behavior he supposedly abhores and admonishes Moore for doing. I could go through every single one of his little "Here's the truth" statements and tear them apart, but I think you get the idea.
Who is the idealogue spinner, again?
Man, I write longer comments to you than some of my own journal entries, Brad! You really seem to know how to get me typing, don't you? ;P