Litkicks Message Board Archive

I haven't read this particular book, but

Posted to Poetry and Politics




I've read a couple of his columns. Some of what he says makes perfect sense and must be said. But otoh, he does come across as a conservative flunkey, with his religion, morality garbage, the full mix of the conservative shibboleths, iow., mostly crap. Plus, to be honest with you, he's heaved into view in a kinda suspicious way, as if he sort of, "figured" out how to make a living and got sponsored by the right. Or in the opposite order. That smells of professionalism, you know -- guys like that are not independent; even when they say something sensible you just can't help being a bit suspicious, and moreover, they never say only sensible things, it's always one good line and then a veritable load of partisan bullshit. Makes you wonder if they're not simply seeding propaganda with a bit of bona-fide thinking so as to gain credibility -- which they then use to spout agitprop (which is what they're paid for, rather than fostering reasonable debate.)

I also don't like his company -- the limbaughs, the medveds, etc. These are hired guns, the "lap dogs of imperialism", if you will. You should listen to some of the "conservative" radio sometime, you'll be repulsed by the very brazen vulgarity of it.

At the same time, they do counteract the left's attempts of totalitarianism, so it is, after all, good that they exist -- in that sense. At least there's someone who can throw some of the left's own shit back at them.

My problem is, while I may value someone's contribution as a counterweight to the opposite camp (that pertains to both camps), what I'd really like to see, is some ppl who'd be going after truth -- reasonably and honestly. Instead what we have is mostly demagogy (although, coming from opposite political camps, it sort of, balances out.) There's no reasonable straight talk though, it's all agitprop -- Michael Moore vs. Michael Medved sorta deal; fundamentally, both are posturing professional frauds.

Well, maybe, like in geopolitics -- you tend to hope for some fairness and good will, but realistically, a balance of power is all that's achievable. Dialectics, sorta thing.

(I'll check out this book, thanks.)