>because he dare to criticise the system?

First, let's be clear. Being in the movie business and taking a politically liberal position is not exactly Profiles in Courage. <g>

Moore is a showman, not even a semi-serious historian or analyst. He's a limousine liberal who postures as a working-man while sending his kids to private schools and wallowing in the kind of celebrity you get for telling people whose knowledge of history and world affairs is as deep as a teaspoon what they are emotionally pre-disposed to hear. ('Fight the power, man. Daddy lies to you. We should outlaw war and mean people and there should be free beer and bong hits! Toga toga toga!!!' - okay, I wanna hear it too, but I'd like to think I grew out of believing I could wish it so )

There are people worth listening to on both sides of any political issue. He just happens to be a side-show, posturing, making himself the story, and pandering to adolescents and people who prior to 911 couldn't have found Iraq or Afghanistan in a dictionary, let alone on a map.

I just think his style of 'journalism' cheapens seriuos discussion and his sloppy demagoguery is offensive on so many levels I would be appalled even if I agreed with absolutely everything he says. ( actually, I'd probably like him even less if I agreed with him since then people might think he played some role in forming my opinions. )

I think my analogy was apt - it's like getting you computer knowledge from the kid who works at Best Buy.

But in the land of the blind the one eyed man is king.

I know your reference was to Sicko re healthcare - where I probably agree with him more - but the point is he does "exposes" using silly journalistic tricks to arouse emotions rather than create any kind of understanding, and because of his style he has influenced a lot of kids whose knowledge of history and world affairs is pretty spotty in any case.

By the way, I don't listen to politicians - Bush or whoever - on such topics either. But when it comes to things like the Middle East or national security issues if you have a choice of getting your analysis from Bernard Lewis, Steven Emerson, Daniel Pipes, Robert Conquest etc or Michael Moore and his megaphone you're cheating yourself relying on the Hollywood version.


>Why do you call him a clown? Why do you say that he doesn't know what he is talking about? Is it because of concrete facts or is it because he dare to criticise the system? I want to know because I've watched Bowling for Columbine and read some of his book and while I know that he have been accused of lying on some topic (political intervention?), I'm more incline to beleive Moore than Bush and his friends...
>
>>Getting an awareness of social issues from that clown ( or right-wing talk radio or Katie Couric or moveon.org) is like getting computer knowledge from the kid who works at Best Buy or somebody's 12 year old kid because they can get to the last level in Grand Theft Auto. <g>