Litkicks Message Board Archive

zenchild

Posted to Poetry and Politics




I’m not sure if you’re aware of it, perhaps you didn’t read the article. But you illustrate Matthew d'Ancona’s point exactly. Here it is again.

“This is why it isn't enough to say that Moore manipulates the facts, or that he is a charlatan, or that his arguments are glib. The reality is that his methods are working, and working for a reason. He is the grizzled face of a culture in denial, the contrarian voice of the millions who would rather hate Dubya than confront the awesome threat that stalks our age. His success is an urgent warning to those who support the war, who grasp its importance, to raise their game, and fast. Nitpicking is not the answer. It's the big issues that count. And it's there that Michael Moore has no answers. If he is so visionary, why is his objective - to run Bush out of the White House - so parochial? What would he do about the new horrors of our time? Dude, where's your sense of
history?"

But as for me, I prefer to continue discussing the specifics. I find the “nitpicking” quite important, although discussing the specifics with the pathological is certainly futile. But specifics are important because I believe that every sacrifice of the truth by people like you and Moore no matter how slight, can’t go unanswered without human losses to not only the Iraqi people, but to many others.

So, if you want to get specific be my guest. If you want to remain glib and invective, you can do that too. I just don’t see the point in having arguments or debates by casting out wide nets of disagreement without a care in the world about the specifics of the truth or lies you that you claim to be.