|
|
|
|
|
Jens 'n' Frens
Idle thoughts of a relatively libertarian Republican in Cambridge, MA, and whomever he invites. Mostly political.
"A strong conviction that something must be done is the parent of many bad measures." -- Daniel Webster
|
|
|
|
|
Monday, June 28, 2004 :::
Steyn has a piece on WC at OpinionJournal, and of course I want to use it to talk about Michael Moore.The day after that, he's in ethics class helping out his new buddy, King Faisal's nephew Prince Turki, later the deeply sinister longtime head of Saudi Arabia's intelligence service and now ambassador in London. This is ethics class in Georgetown, I believe, not at Miss Marie Purkins's School for Little Folks. But even so, where's Michael Moore when you need a documentary exposé of the murky decades-old ties between the House of Saud and the House of Bill? I was thinking the other day that complaining about Moore's violent allergies to the truth are all well and good, but concede too much. While his films seem to become increasingly inaccurate — as though he's fascinated to see what he can get away with — their greater offense to The Truth is still less in the small-scale inaccuracies than the presentation of partial truths completely out of context. His six-degrees of Osama bin Laden may well be factually accurate — I don't frankly know — but I still can't concede the implication that it means more than that he's decent at data mining.I have a friend of the left who occasionally presents me with some piece of information related to some story I haven't heard about. One incident I particularly remember is when he mentioned some gathering, and noted that the Park Service hadn't issued an estimate of the crowd size — as though this was a cover-up. "They quit doing that after the controversy over the million man march," I informed him. While I've noted other examples at the times when they've come up, every time since then that he's told me something I've thought, "If I sometimes know something crucial that he's not presenting even when I haven't heard of the 'story', what even more pertinent details is he leaving out, by accident or otherwise, this time?" This is how I feel about Moore much of the time; the lies are, if anything, quite convenient, as they're easy to point to, but the broader fraud is the bigger problem. Oh, and of course you should read all of anything written by Mark Steyn. We all know that by now, yes?
::: posted by dWj at 7:33 PM
|
|
|
|