Stupid White Men

Just started reading it and have finished the first two chapters. What I can I say so far it's fascinating reading and I suppose our American friends who are not Republicans will probably enjoy it as well.

I've not read it as I have a vague suspicion its a Sunday Newspaper article extended into a book.

What's the view of the "Stupid" Right on the book?

Matthew's right - it is a Sunday broadsheet magazine feature stretched out to book length. It is intermittently very funny, and one appreciates his anger at the injustice of it all, but he's not as good a writer as he is a film-maker.

I rather wish that there was someone who could write as elegantly as PJ O'Rourke, but on the left.

Kevin

I haven't read the book yet. Waiting to borrow it from a friend, but I can recommend watching Bowling for Columbine.

The film gives an interesting, if probably not very balanced, view of American youth, extremists, and the NRA. Also shows the power that media can have. Plus Charlton Heston, starring as a complete asshole

Simon

quote:

---

he's not as good a writer as he is a film-maker

---

I agree, the book was an interesting read, but too much of his personal feelings shine through (I suppose that was his intention, though).

The film lets the people he's trying to show up speak for themselves, and quite often that's the best strategy. It also does away with the need to question the accuracy of the content.

Thomas

I got a few chapters in before the weekend supplement style wore me down. I may go back to it, but the humour seemed forced and at times inappropriate.

quote:

---

The view of the stupid right was to put pressure on the publisher to pulp the book before publication. He had to get it published in the UK. The story of how "they tried to ban it" is illuminating.

---

Dozy, do you have a link to this story, or can you give us more information ?

It's interesting how one of the few western democratic societies that has freedom of speach inshrined in their laws also has some of the strongest censorship.

Simon

I agree with the sentiment that it is a magazine article stretched into a book. There are maybe two excellent chapters, the quality of the rest however is inconsistent, often poorly thought out and occasionally self indulgent. Maybe I will try Bowling for Columbine.
Having read Stupid White Men back to back with this:

I was shocked at the number of similarities between the corruptness of the two respective governments.
John

I read it a few months ago. I agree there was a lot of Moore's personal feelings and opinions in the book, but I didn't have a problem with that. As he pointed out, pretty much all the factual content of the book is information available elsewhere, and I don't have a problem with someone expressing personal outrage at the type of activity outlined in the book.

One thing I find amazing which is touched on in the book (and I'd be interested to hear the opinions of US members on this) is the continuing vilification of Ralph Nadar.

I'm not saying I agree with everything he says, or that he even should be president, because I just don't know enough about the guy. But it seems to me that his campaigns for consumer rights would be beneficial to your average American citizen, and he should get credit for that, at least.

Chris L

"Bowling for Columbine" is very good and highly recommended.

In general Michael Moore is of course ripping off Mark Thomas who is much better. His insisting on viewing paintings millioniaires were donating to the public as a tax dodge was inspired.

Matthew

The problem I had with Stupid White Men is the same complaint that I had with George Monbiot's Captive State. In both cases the stories of corporate corruption or stupidity are just so unbelievably shocking, that you just can't help but feel your blood boil! The statements of fact are compelling in and of themselves, and require little in the way of analysis to reveal their implications.

In my view, however, both books begin to break down when they begin to speculate on motive, and try to draw out collusive behavior or evidences of some "master plan". I am not trying to argue that corruption or waste do not exist, far the contrary. My problem, however, is with the tack that Moore and Monbiot typically take in trying to identify the source of the problem. In particular, I find their understanding of business practices is often flawed, or even naive, and ascribes a wisdom or foresight to people or institutions that just isn't warranted. It may be overstating things, but many businesses make money in spite of themselves. They are collections of the strengths and weaknesses of their employees and bureaucracies, with the latter typically dominating the former. Why did The Office strike such a chord when the nation?

I have long been a fan of Michael Moore, but I find him at his best at his and most compelling (understandably enough) when he is working within areas that are his own. I think that is why Roger & Me still stands out as his most compelling work because of the personal element, with real rather than righteous anger. But, in my view, he is better at revealing the consequences of what happens outside of the boardroom, than understanding the decisions taken therein. He is clearly a very talented fellow, and his dedication to activism deserves a standing ovation in our age of apathy. Consequently, my hats off to him as a provacateur, but I maintain my reservations on many of his conclusions that he draws.

As for the whole "nobody locks their doors in Canada thing", I so do not buy that! Yes, it has been eight years since the fair pastures of Calgary, and I did - in fairness - know a few people who never locked their doors. But I truly believe that to be an exception rather than a norm. I would caution drawing any conclusions about kinder, gentler Canada on this point.

The Mark Thomas Comedy Product was solid, like Chomsky meets Brass Eye. Sadly, I caught his recent live show, and it was pretty dire. Without the receptionist-bothering pranks, it was a load of name-dropping interspersed with jokes about his other half.

"Chomsky meets Brass Eye" a good and fair descripton of previous offerings.

So, who will take Mark's crown now that his cutting edge is starting to dull?

Roy

quote:

---

The film lets the people he's trying to show up speak for themselves, and quite often that's the best strategy. It also does away with the need to question the accuracy of the content.

---

I think this is a rather naive view, Films can be edited in a way to support almost any view or argument. e.g. anything going against the message can simply be left out.

quote:

---

As for the whole "nobody locks their doors in Canada thing", I so do not buy that!

---

Well, how would you lock an igloo?

Michael Moore plays a bit loose with Canadian facts. Odd that he has no trouble detailing the follies and foibles of U.S. society, but he seems to have a blind spot when it comes to Canada.

Canada has a lot to be proud of but it also has its share of problems. I strongly suspect that if Michael Mooore was Canadian he would do documentaries on the state of national health care (basically underfunded despite it being a consistently high priority among Canadians), the treatment of Aboriginals, the increasing concentration of media ownership, severe cutbacks to the CBC, that the prime minister is a moron (but, luckily, a largely ignored and ineffectual moron),...

Joe

Coincidentally there's an article regarding Michael Moore and 'facts' in today's Times.

It would appear that you cannot really take anything he presents at face value, so take care forming opinions after watching or reading.

One example given was the association made in 'Bowling for Columbine' between local Lockheed weapons production and the massacre, and the moving of rockets around in the dead of night. Conveniently ignoring that Lockheed don't make weapons in that plant and the satellite launchers tend to block traffic in the day.

Paul

I encourage you to read the Times article. It is long but worth the effort because it goes a long way in describing the sorts of things that can be done with half-truths and innuendo at the hands of a smart man like Moore. It's Moore specific but its a good lesson on the use of subtle dishonesty that can bend and twist an argument in one way or the other.

I am remined of an old litigation trick that goes something like this:

"So, Mr Brown, is it true that you still beat your wife?"

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7-716842,00.html

Judd

Well said, Judd.

Looking ahead, it will be interesting to see how his anti-Bush film is received prior to the next election.

A newspaper owned by Rupert Murdoch having a go at Michael Moore for dodgy journalism that lies somewhere between twisted facts and outright lies? Oh the irony!

Also if Charlton Heston is a senile old loony how come he's still allowed to wave guns around?

Matthew

Matthew,

quote:

---

Also if Charlton Heston is a senile old loony how come he's still allowed to wave guns around?

---

Do you know why "how come" means the same as "why"? Genuinely curious, is me.

Joe

A contraction of how does it come about that or somesuch?

Matthew

quote:

---

Films can be edited in a way to support almost any view or argument. e.g. anything going against the message can simply be left out.

---

Greeny, you are right, of course, but a large part of this film does not convey any view or argument. A five-minute interview with a gun-wielding idiot simply reveals that these people really do exist and that it's not just a stereotype (no view or argument here). I don't need to be shown that there are nice, intelligent Americans, too -- I already know that.

Thomas

Matthew,

quote:

---

A contraction of how does it come about that or somesuch?

---

I wonder if "how come" is etymologically related to the French word for "why" -- "pourquoi," which roughly translates to "for what."

Joe

quote:

---

A five-minute interview with a gun-wielding idiot simply reveals that these people really do exist and that it's not just a stereotype (no view or argument here).

---

It's both a stereotype and a reality.

That doesn't excuse editing Charlton Heston clips together from different times and places to cause a false impression.

If Michael Moore were the NYT he'd have fired himself long ago.

Paul

Joe,

"How come" strikes me a more likely an evolution of germanic old english, but I can't remember why.

I suppose I could dig out some old textbooks if you really wanted to know, but in any event I think you would have loved lingiustics.