Michael Moore's alternative history of the US

http://www.michaelmoore.com/keyes1big.jpg

I respect him for that alone.

Moore is tricky as a topic for me, as I tend to mostly focus on the message first and the messenger second. The fact that a "preacher" is often in violation of his creed might be somewhat overlooked by me if I feel his sermon is very good, and I feel he sincerely believes in it. This is often nearly impossible to ascertain, of course. If there is evidence the "preacher" is cynically turning out his flock, he deserves whatever misery he gets in my book. Any less evidence of bad intention gets a bit of a shrug as I turn back to the meaning of the sermons. Clotion says Moore is too much of dumbass to see what a hypocrite he is. I think by definition you _have_ to know what you're doing in order to be a hypocrite (one who feigns or dissembles). Does it make a difference if the proper accusation is that Moore is only a self-deluded fool? I think foolish Moore makes many good points in many of his pieces. However, it only makes it worse for Moore that he is a "gotcha" professional. Since his ascendence with Roger and Me, his MO seems to stalk people and ambush them physically, rhetorically, ideologically. It was inevitable that people would want to do PRECISELY THAT with him. Wasn't there a short about a guy stalking Moore to get an interview?

I really liked you pointing out that people tend to point in multiple directions as an aspect of their continuing development without it necessarily meaning hypocrisy. Most people understand this intuitively but only half-way, and so only demand purity of their opposition (or opposition's candidate).

And yet...

He might be the Rush Limbaugh of the left. And all power to his elbow. Sure, we'd love to have intellectually subtle critiques that give due reference of the complexity of most 'problems' in modern society. But here's the rub. Something aren't subtle. The labour flight to sweatshop economies isn't subtle. You don't need subtlety to make the obvious point that corporate power is A Bad Thing.

The left need communicators to sell it's version of events. To paraphrase James Callaghan, the right has it's simple response to events in place whilst the left are still trying agree the terms in which they conduct the debate. Communicators with a tendency to become demogogues should be let enywhere near the formal reins opf power - but they are needed to shift the political centre of gravity; to point out that there other explanations for why lives don't work out the way they should have that don't rely on blaming immigrants or Godlessness.

exactly the same criticisms seem to be levelled, except does Moore give secretaries a hard time too? rather trhan the people who should get it who he just can't get through to?

Didn't watch Moore's show either; just making the point that the left needs to have people who can get a message across. That's why I like Brian Reade in The Mirror. I don't agree with everything he writes, and I think he lets himself down. He scores a 90% agreement rating with me though, and that's more than the government does. He's a leftwing Richard Littlejohn, and about time too. I'd rather have someone who targetting the Monarchy and Tories as opposed to banging on about asylum seeking and the creeping homosexualisation of this green and pleasant land.