Steven Den Beste offers a very solid recap of Iranian puppet Moqtada al-Sadr's abortive "Shi'ite uprising" in Iraq, then shifts gears and makes a provocative comparison (Hat Tip to reader Jinnderella):
"Nonetheless, as D'Ancona says, the LL's have rallied to [Michael Moore's] flag. They've moved to his holy city. They've adopted positions on the terrain he's chosen for the battle. And they're using the arguments and evidence he provides as ammunition.
In the short term, it may seem as if the LL's are mobilized and fighting hard. But it also leaves them concentrated and vulnerable. And they are fighting on just about the worst ground they could have chosen."
Note to history buffs: look up the name "Alcibiades." Den Beste concludes by noting:
"Bush may be vulnerable to substantive criticism of his personal capabilities and his policies and motivation. There might be a rational and convincing argument to be made for voting for "anyone but Bush".
But we won't find out in 2004. Michael Moore has done more than any other single man to guarantee that. Someone on the left may voice such an argument, but he'll be drowned out by rabid LL jihadists as they stridently deliver a message tailor-made to alienate the broad electorate in style of presentation, in attitude, in substance, and in underlying message. Moore holds a locus of extreme political positions, and most Americans will consider at least one of them to be utterly odious....
It is rare for a political faction to be blessed with an opponent who is so charismatic to his fanatical supporters, so repulsive to non-supporters, and so vulnerable to criticism and caricature. I can't think of a high-profile leftist I'd rather have "at the centre of things" than Michael Muqtada al-Moore."
It's an interesting thesis, anyway. I'd prefer someone responsible, myself. The stakes are too high. But if we have to get someone irresponsible, Den Beste does a good job of demonstrating that "Michael Muqtada al-Moore" is a fine choice indeed.
Well, aside from all the RPGing, and machine gunning, what possible differences could be found?
(Oh, and Sadr was hardly responsible for Fallujah; nor vice-versa; I also notice that den Beste brought up Fallujah, then immediately dropped that topic, with no return; I can't imagine why.)
(Reminder: I agree that those who want to get Bush out of office are making a bad choice by rallying to, and defending, Moore.)
"...his movie was endorsed by France, which blessed it with the Palme d'Or at Cannes."
Useful grasp of the Cannes jury system there. Who knew that all these people were sinister agents of France? Is this a plot by den Beste to make Moore correct about something? Is den Beste controlled by the French?Come on guys, let's not give Big Mike (AKA The BM) more credit than he's worth.
The BM is a fool. The only people who pay him any mind are other fools who find it more exciting to be a rebel by opposing "the man" than to bother themselves with the truth.
Al-Sadr is an opportunist too, but Moore is nowhere near being in Al-Sadr's class. Al-Sadr has thungs supporting him, but all Moore has is dreamers, who might find the time for an uprising between pedacures. Moore wouldn't sacrifice an ice cream cone for his cause - Al Sadr doesn't eat ice cream. Big difference.
BTW, thungs are neither an indigenous tribe in Asia, nor an article of clothing. thungs = thugs.
Gary,
Den Beste isn't saying Moore is a terrorist. He's saying Moore is leading his followers off a political cliff. The flurry of activity around him looks formidable, but is in fact a miscalculation of the highest order.
The ancient Greeks would have called it "The Alcibiades Syndrome," but Alcibiades was a more charismatic (and politically astute) guy. Complete disaster for those who followed him, though, who overplayed his hand at precisely the wrong time and place. Like al-Sadr. Like, very possibly (but we don't know yet for sure) Michael Moore.
The problem with Moore is that he's not "clean" enough. He uses dirty data, he presents it poorly, it's not properly referenced, etc.
Chomsky is MUUCH cleaner, though still not clean enough. He also improves with time. I highly recommend that people tempted to watch Moore's stuff go watch the Manufacturing Consent video instead. Ignore all the "chomsky is the devil" people and check it out.
Chomsky's real problem is that he's not telegenic, and takes time to get warmed up -- not good CNN material. Chomsky's other big problem is that his followers -- "chomskyites" -- are mostly raving idiots. I've seen these people try to ask Chomsky questions, and it's really embarrassing.
IMHO here's his best interview:
http://www.cbc.ca/programs/sites/hottype_chomsky911.html
WoC readers might be interested in a set of exchanges about Moore (aka Fat Bastard) I am having over at The Blogging of the President. Unable to defend Moore factually the line has now switched to the idea that F9/11 is not an argument but a narrative. Oh Joy!
Politically Moore is a tarbaby for Kerry and the Democrats. They can't been seen renouncing him for internal Democratic party reasons; but they lose votes everytime he yelps his endorsement of Kerry. Delightful.
Now appearing in a theater near you, the provocative new feature from the producers of "Terror Alert!", it's "The Vanquishing of The Enemy", starring Michael Moore as a radical, hate-spewing maniacal liberal cleric, Den Beste as a fearless scribe who takes him on mano a mano, and the Europeans as clueless, drooling mobs second only to the American liberals in fey, syncopantic sedition! The liberals wander about foaming at the mouth trying to eat the brains of hard workin', hard drinkin' patriots, but Mojo, played by Beste, discovers they quickly pee there pants and collapse if you wave a flag at them. Mojo and his brave cohorts manage to save the women and the republic by holing up in a flag factory in Indonesia and plucking off the relentless horde of drooling ghouls one by one with words from their fearless screeds.
Don't miss it!
Maybe bloggers find Moore so distasteful because he's succeeded at their goals: being an alternative to official media. After all, a blog only speaks to people who are already read a lot of media. Rather than an alternative, blogs may serve more of a supplement (high-protein, to be sure!) to the media diet.
Canvassing in Milwaukee this weekend I talked to a number of people who progressives naturally appeal to--lower-income workers. The thing about it is--none of these people read blogs. But they do watch movies. None of them were ready to jump off a cliff for Aldolf Hitler Moore (or whatever the name you're calling him is), but he definitely brought the problems of dishonesty in the current administration home to them.
Maybe bloggers find Moore so distasteful because he's succeeded at their goals: being an alternative to official media. After all, a blog only speaks to people who are already read a lot of media. Rather than an alternative, perhaps blogs actually serve as a supplement (high-protein, to be sure!) to the media diet.
Canvassing in Milwaukee this weekend I talked to a number of people who progressives naturally appeal to--lower-income workers. The thing about it is--none of these people read blogs. But they do watch movies. None of them were ready to jump off a cliff for Aldolf Hitler Moore (or whatever the name you're calling him is), but he definitely brought the problems of dishonesty in the current administration home to them.
It's worth noting that al-Sadr is not, in fact, an "Iranian puppet." This is a gross oversimplification and misunderstanding of him and of his current relationship to the Iranian clergy. If anyone is an Iranian puppet, it's al-Hakim. But he's playing ball. Are there various Iranian elements funneling money and propaganda into Iraq? Undoubtedly. Is Sadr nevertheless his own man and part of an indigenous Iraqi phenomenon? Undoubtedly.
It's a movie, guys. A movie!! Moore doesn't have any "followers", in that sense. Do directors have followers?
There's a simple category error here. You don't take appreciation for a person's directorial efforts, and then apply that to another sphere - namely "following" someone in their political views. Moore showed a lot of political story you don't see in the US media, that should cause people to think, and check stuff out for themselves. That's always a good thing.
Maybe bloggers find Moore so distasteful because he's succeeded at their goals: being an alternative to official media.
Being a private MiniTruth is the goal of bloggers everywhere? Riiiiight.
Obelus,
Now THERE'S a movie!
Seth,
Moore has one huge problem.
As people figure out his dishonesty it gives Bush a huge boost among those paying the least attention to politics.
This movie should have come out in October.
He released too soon.
I have yet to see moore"s fahrenheit 9/11. But from the reviews it is obvious that the bush-cheney camp has been shaken quite badly by the success of the film. My hindu mystic guru friends have been telling me that the kerry-edwards team is bound to win very handsomely in november- so please let the bush-cheney team make appropriate arrangements for their departure from the white-house. I think india and america have a great future together- let us march on the royal road to progress and prosperity. Amen- regards- hiro bachani- www.sufijalalani.com om namoh shivai
Hiro,
Well, if that's what your "hindu mystic guru friends" say, who am I to argue? I admit, I'm curious about their divination methodology, though....
If dishonesty bothered people Bush wouldn't be President. Get real, folks.
If dishonesty bothered people Bush wouldn't be President. Get real, folks.
Zizka,
Actually, you can make a much stronger case that Bush is President because dishonesty bothers people. Al Gore's habitual tendency to "resume inflation" made it easy to connect him (rhetorically) with Bill Clinton's difficulties with the truth. This was one factor that contributed to Gore losing in 2000.
Moreover, on a relative scale, Bush is probably the most conspicuously honest President since Teddy Roosevelt--although I certainly don't expect you to concede that point, given your position. In any case, it is remarkable how tightly linked his statements of intent are to the actions he takes.