Daily Kos

Hitchens gets B*slapped

by GP

Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 07:22:22 AM PDT

I've been waiting for a reply from Michael Moore's war room regarding the noxious article from Chris Hitchens. In absence of a counterattack from the Moore camp, check out this excellent retort from Chris Parry in www.hollywoodbitchslap.com

Tags: (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 47 comments

  •  One part that I agree with is (2.85 / 7)

    "Indeed, Moore's affected and ostentatious concern for black America is one of the most suspect ingredients of his pitch package. In a recent interview, he yelled that if the hijacked civilians of 9/11 had been black, they would have fought back, unlike the stupid and presumably cowardly white men and women (and children). "

    ------

    What Moore said about the 9.11 passengers was sick and disrespectful. I also think that blacks resent his argument too. It assumes that blacks are more inherently violent than whites.

    In Stupid White Men he has a chapter called "Kill Whitey", which savages all whites and uses racial stereotypes to attack both races. A black and a white man would find that chapter offensive.

    When it comes to race Moore should shut up as he makes an ass out of himself. The most ironic line in "Kill Whitey" is the argument that people should "lose the liberal concern for black people", which is exactly what Moore has.

    How many black people does Moore encounter in the posh NYC, Manhattan neighborhood where he lives? Very few.

    by jiacinto on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 07:40:50 AM PDT

    •  needs more thought (none / 0)

      How many black people does Moore encounter in the posh NYC, Manhattan neighborhood where he lives? Very few.

      First, your comment could be construed as being racist in the assumption that blacks don't live in posh Manhattan neighborhoods.  I know that isn't what you meant but I hope you see my point.

      Anyway, Moore is from Detroit and uses his experiences there as a metaphorical lens through which he views the world.  No matter which way you look at it, rich, poor and otherwise, there are lots of blacks in Detroit.

      The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

      by mikepridmore on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 07:51:39 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Moore's from Flint (none / 0)

        C'mon, man, give the poor ol' GM town its props! We ain't got much besides Moore, Bob Eubanks and Angelo's coney island (made with Koegel's hot dogs, natch). Besides, Detroit's like 90 miles south.

        by misty on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 08:00:16 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That's not all you have. (none / 0)

          What about Halo Burger?  Try getting green olives on your burger at the Burger King drive through.  Have it your way, indeed.

          Meet John McCain.

          by DelRPCV on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 08:42:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  I actually (none / 0)

          went to college with a nice girl from Flint, though I don't recall her last name.  Dolly Something-or-other... I had forgotten Moore was from there for some reason (looks around for someone or something to blame and finds neither).  Even so, Moore is very familiar with Detroit and its environs, which was the essence of my point that he does know a lot about blacks despite currently residing in a posh NYC neighborhood.

          The ...Bushies... don't make policies to deal with problems. ...It's all about how can we spin what's happening out there to do what we want to do. Krugman

          by mikepridmore on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 08:59:21 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Flint's got blacks too, you know (none / 0)

            Its majority black, even.
            The racial makeup of the city is 41.39% White, 53.27% African American, 0.64% Native American, 0.44% Asian, 0.02% Pacific Islander, 1.11% from other races, and 3.14% from two or more races. 2.99% of the population are Hispanic or Latino of any race.

            by misty on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 11:57:25 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  anywhere (4.00 / 2)

        In Manhattan, you get all colors and ethnicities everywhere. Even if Moore wanted to avoid black people by living on the upper west (or east) side, he couldn't.

        Mistrusted User

        by Planet B on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 08:53:53 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  anywhere (none / 0)

        In Manhattan, you get all colors and ethnicities everywhere. Even if Moore wanted to avoid black people by living on the upper west (or east) side, he couldn't.

        Mistrusted User

        by Planet B on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 08:54:20 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Umm (4.00 / 4)

      How many black people does Moore encounter in the posh NYC, Manhattan neighborhood where he lives? Very few.

      I don't know if you've ever been to NYC but I've yet to find a part of Manhattan where I could take a walk around the block and not encounter a dozen ethnicities.

      Now, people had lost their fear. From that moment I knew we would win. - Oscar Olivera

      by Josh Prophet on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 07:54:58 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Right (4.00 / 2)

        That was a particularly ignorant comment from jiacinto. There is not a single neighborhood in Manhattan where you don't run into people from multiple races every day. In fact, if you're on the street, almost every minute of every day. Have you ever been here, jiacinto? I think Moore lives on the Upper West Side, and there is still a good chunk of public housing on the Upper West Side, so it isn't like he's just seeing maids and wealthy blacks, either.

        Having bitch-slapped you on that, I do think Moore makes too much of a production out of race in places where it doesn't really work to advance his argument. OK, so he has flaws. He's still more effective than you or I would be making a film about Bush. If you disagree, you're more than welcome to try.

        "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet." Al Gore

        by jd in nyc on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:05:51 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  actually, what i hear is ... (2.66 / 3)

      that blacks are more likely to respond in a crisis rather than act like a white sheep.  the truth of the sentiment is a point of discussion.  there were white people willing to respond in the crisis on the fourth plane.  

      the stereotype buried in the comment could be that blacks inherently distrust controlling forces (hijackers, enablers, or people working with the hijackers to find a solution to the situation).  in certain situations, distrust is a life-saving strategy.  we know now what the intentions of the hijackers were.  could the towers have been spared if there was more distrust of the hijackers and an invigorated resistance?  who knows.

      in following, what is ths source of this distrust?  what has failed them in their lives to engender such distrust?  is the distrust an indictment of blacks or the society in which they live?

      moreover, the inclination to respond physically to a situation is negative through your lens.  i know those who lacked the courage or ability to respond on the fourth plane were grateful there were passengers.

      The struggle against religious extremism begins at home.

      by cracklins on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 07:59:46 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  both interpretations are ignorant... (4.00 / 2)

        ...of basic psychology.

        In many crisis situations, people, regardless of race, will wait before doing acting because they expect someone -else- to respond.  Problem is, everyone else is doing the same thing.

        The psychological term is "diffusion of responsibility".  

        It has nothing to do with skin color.

        by creativedissonance on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:05:45 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  check again (none / 0)

          ignorance is on your part (and banding such discriptors to people who wish to discuss issues won't endear you to many).

          the point of jiacinto's post about interpreting moore's comment.  i simply state that there is a different way to interpret his words.  

          if you read my post i state that "the stereotype buried in the comment could be ..."  the operative words are "stereotype" and "could be".  do you presume that stereotypes are accepted by everyone?  (i guess that would be an ironic stereotype)  did i state that i am beholden to the steroetype?  i also state "could be", because i don't presume to know exactly what moore's thoughts were at that moment.

          i accept my own shortcomings as i accept yours.

          The struggle against religious extremism begins at home.

          by cracklins on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:29:29 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  whoa tiger (none / 0)

            "ignorance is on your part (and banding such discriptors to people who wish to discuss issues won't endear you to many)."

            I never said that the people making those interpretations were ignorant.  I was arguing that the interpretations (or, if you will, stereotypes) themselves lacked a sophisticated understanding of human behavior.

            Both assumptions -- white people are less likely to act; black people are more likely to do so -- are equally ignorant of psychology.  

            Ignorance isn't necessarily a bad thing.  It can be cured with education.  Don't confuse it with stupidity, which is essentially uncurable.

            Also, next time, respond to what I actually wrote instead of what you think I meant, ok?  I'm not getting involved in a flamewar here.

            Thanks.

            by creativedissonance on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:37:16 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  no flames, but some fire (none / 0)

              as an lsu alumnus, being called a tiger is a complement.

              my point was that there are alternate interpretations of moore's words without placing a judgement on those words.  true - an interpretation can be flawed.  i don't pretend to know the exact mental state of anyone let alone myself.  that's what life's journey is all about.

              you wrote "both interpretations are ignorant".  it is unclear what you are referring to.  jiacinto or my interpretation of moore's reference, moore's interpretation of how blacks/african-americans and white respond to crises, ...  because i do not know moore's exact thoughts or how they were generated, i (and all others) will remain ignorant of what he really meant (to a degree).

              furthermore, my issue with your response was with the assumption that i uphold the ideas i am interpreting from someone's words.

              honestly, i didn't expect such sharp reponses directed at me from you and jd in nyc.  i had hoped that the reflections of what moore said and why he said it would stimulate a discussion on issues rather than an aggressive response to me.  i too have no interest in a flame war.

              i find it interestin too that my proposal of an alternate interpretaion of moore's words provoked such a stroing response, yet few have picked up on the possible alteration of his words - the "and children" in parentheses.  i would have thought the corruption of someone's words would result in some impassioned response for attempting to preserve the true nature of our rhetoric.  perhaps, the present political environment has made the truth too relative, easily massaged to support our own perceptions.  just look how rapidly the exchange on my opsts have shifted the discussion.

              The struggle against religious extremism begins at home.

              by cracklins on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 10:17:06 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

        •  My impulse is (4.00 / 2)

          to hand out 4's whenever someone introduces behavioral science to the discussion.  Nice point.

          A small point I'd make is that I've noticed that threads on Kos can get downright weird when race becomes a topic.  I hope I live to see the day when intelligent Americans can talk about race without getting crazy.

          Politics is the art of extracting money from the rich and votes from the poor by promising to protect each from the other.

          by cerebrocrat on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 10:55:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Blacks, or African-Americans? (none / 1)

        I think you must mean the latter, because the people of Rwanda certainly didn't resist genocide in the way you indicate. In fact, tragically, there are parallels between how Tutsis and sympathetic Hutus responded and how Jews responded in 1930's Germany in terms of first trusting authority and then later taking a fatalistic attitude rather than resisting in any very organized way as the murderers came. You should read about it if you haven't already.

        "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet." Al Gore

        by jd in nyc on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:12:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  what? (none / 0)

          do you think moore is speaking of rwandans riding in us planes?  i don't know, but i'm sure it is safe to assume that the majority of readers will infer that that blakcs refers to americans of african descent rather than play semantic football with words.

          genocide?  do you associate "crisis" with genocide? your far ourt left field is a definite head scratcher.  i'm surprised i'm spending time responding to your non sequitor.

          The struggle against religious extremism begins at home.

          by cracklins on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:21:38 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  not a non-sequitor (none / 1)

            I just don't like sloppy talk of "blacks" and "whites" when what you mean is African-Americans and European-Americans. Even those of us who know better make mistakes when we aren't diligent, and come to stupid conclusions influenced by bad racial thinking.

            I could have criticized you for overgeneralizing, for ignoring the fact that there was no precedent for crashing planes into buildings, etc. I don't think your comment was very well-informed, but I just chose an easy thing to criticize.

            The obviously relevant variable that distinguished the first three planes from the fourth is that the people in the first three planes thought they would probably have time to plot a response and would be safe in the end. It was reasonable not to act. The people in the fourth plane knew what was in store for them if they didn't act, and they did. To drag race into this is just dumb.

            By the way, do you know that there weren't African-Americans on those first three flights? It would be a shock if there weren't. They didn't act because they didn't realize they had to act quickly to save their lives. That's all there is to it.

            "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet." Al Gore

            by jd in nyc on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:32:53 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  shimeezle, shimazzle (none / 0)

              you can criticize me all you want about precedents for planes, but you still are off your mark. i've been talking about apples and you rimunate on oranges.  

              the point of my post is there exists an alternate interpretation of moore's words.  to support that possibility, i elaborate on what those thoughts may be and how they may have come about.  does that mean i uphold the same conclusions?  (i really don't know what your answer is to this, because you seem so confident about what i believe - probably more so than myself.)

              if by "sloppy talk" you mean using the words of the original author, i am not surprised coming from your post.  you generated a nice uninformed spin on my words.  i suppose you could find the letters to genocide in my post.  race was brought up by moore (or more appropriately jiacinto in this case) or did you miss that?

              your last comment makes clear your delusion is complete in my words and thoughts for that matter.

              i wish you well in your search for the truth for the clouds of ignorance lay thick in your mind.

              The struggle against religious extremism begins at home.

              by cracklins on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:44:26 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

      •  First off (none / 0)

        if Moore actually made that implication, it's a pretty offbase thing to say imho.  Injecting race into a 9/11 hypothetical is idiotic, nuff said.

        However, there is one angle that strikes true in my experience, and I'm white just to make this clear.  Moore is touching on a nerve here about "whites" not Blacks; that's what he's trying to do.  He's trying to say, "wake up and get angry already!"  And it's directly in the GOP's interest to use white SHAME about anger and racial bias to keep folks embarrassed about stating their views and getting angry.

        Where do you think the GOP came up with this "Coalition of the Wild Eyed" thing?  Why do you think they are trying to "shame" Gore and Dean and Gephardt for oratory that would be par for the course if it were Jesse Jackson?  Hell, why was it a problem for Howard Dean to scream like he did?  Why was that "funny" and "embarassing" to white America?  Why, when Al Gore tosses his head like a preacher is that something to be made fun of?

        Finally, I'd like to say that we should talk about race and ethnicity openly and forthrightly here, and we should do it with mutual respect and without bomb throwing and down rating.  Let's get real:  The GOP is all about racial appeals.  We need to wake up and smell the coffee and get beyond our sheepishness.

        Get involved...VOLUNTEER...yes.we.can.

        by kid oakland on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 11:52:03 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  poetic license? (none / 1)

      what is meant by the "(and children)"?  did he say that or not?  if he said it, then remove the parentheses.  if he didn't say it, then the intent of the quote is to inflame rather than to inform the reader. the inclusion is a gross distortion of his words - and unforgivable offense in civil discourse.

      The struggle against religious extremism begins at home.

      by cracklins on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 08:00:37 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  What's the original source (none / 1)

      for the statement about cowardly white passengers?  I haven't seen it anywhere except right-wing anti-Moore propaganda.  It's very possible that he said it, given his tendency to make statements that are....unwise, but I'd like to check out the original context before I draw conclusions.

      by dtj on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 08:01:57 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Googled it (none / 0)

        This is what I could find:

        http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=30367

        Columnist Yasmin Alibhai-Brown writes in the London newspaper The Independent that she took her son to Moore's one-man comedy act "Michael Moore - Live!" at the Roundhouse theater in Camden, North London, and became so "enraged" she almost walked out.

        "Moore went into a rant about how the passengers on the Sept. 11 planes were scaredy cats because they were mostly white," Alibhai-Brown writes. "If the passengers had included black men, he claimed, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect from anybody."

        "God save us from such stupid white men," comments Alibhai-Brown in a reference to Moore's best-selling book, "Stupid White Men," and then accused the "Bowling for Columbine" creator of being insensitive toward the increasing violence, lawlessness and racism plaguing the city's black community.
        --------------------------------------------------

        Well, if I were black, I'd be offended by Moore automatically assuming that I am pre-disposed to violence. It automatically asusmes that all blacks are large and meancing.

        Moore plays on crude stereotypes. Has Moore ever commented on those statements? What has he said about them?

        When it comes to race Moore need to shut up because he is equally offensive to both whites and blacks!

        by jiacinto on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 08:45:50 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  You get your news from worldnetdaily?!! (none / 1)

          Might as well "round out" your world view by adding Fox news, Newsmax, Rush and Hannity to the mix.

          There are many ways that conduct to seeming honour, and some of them very dirty ones. John Webster The Duchess of Malfi Act V Scene II

          by GP on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 08:56:39 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The author is a (none / 1)

            regular columnist for the UK Independent where the editorial first appeared, I gather world net reprinted it.

            I note it (the comment extracted from commentary) was part of a stand up comedy act.  Frankly before I got upset, I'd need to see the act and the audience.  

            by Marisacat on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:04:04 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  In fairness (none / 1)

            jiacinto didn't say s/he got news from there, just that WorldNetDaily came up on a Google search.  

            Still, I don't trust WND for anything.  Their bias is so strong and obvious that they make FOX News look like a model of responsible journalism.  I tried to track down the original Yasmin Alibhai-Brown columns, but apparently you have to pay that site to see old columns.  

            I don't know...maybe Moore said it, maybe he didn't.  Maybe the context is correct, maybe it isn't.  I can't find any hard evidence either way.

            by dtj on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:04:51 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Yasmin follows up! (4.00 / 5)

          Yes, well it was a real article, but there was also a real follow-up that you will not read on NewsMax:

          THE VOICES OF PEOPLE OF COLOUR NEED TO BE HEARD IN THE LAND
          The Independent January 20, 2003
          YASMIN ALIBHAI-BROWN

          Hot news! For two weeks now I have been the heroine of the right in the United States, including fanatical pro-gun lobbyists and the multitudes who want to nuke Iraq now. More than 700 e-mails from these new fans have arrived since I wrote my column on black-on-black violence, in which I criticised the American radical Michael Moore for his crass remarks about the "cowardly" white passengers on the planes on 11 September.

          Many of them congratulate me effusively for being onside with the war against terrorism and Iraq, unlike so many of those other "damn ungrateful" blacks and Arabs. Heck, fellas, sorry to disappoint but I am with Mr Moore when it comes to guns and absolutely with the damn anti-war objectors, all those millions of people of colour from the US to Tokyo who will not be conned into supporting Bush and Blair's mendacity and bloodlust. This week alone, there have been loud renunciations in Malaysia, Indonesia, Namibia, Japan, South Africa, Iran, India, and the 118-nation Non-Aligned Movement.

          (snip)

          We are not afraid to say that the US is a rogue state itself; or that the most terrorised people are Iraqis, victims of their own leader, with whom Donald Rumsfeld shook hands happily as he handed him weapons; or that 100,000 Iraqi conscripts died in the Gulf War (148 of our own boys were killed) and that their mothers are still weeping.

          In the US such dissent is almost blasphemy. Liberal voices are either silenced or are colluding in what John le Carre accurately calls "the historical madness of the US", but this time is worse than McCarthyism, the Bay of Pigs and Vietnam. I became embroiled in an unseemly row with David Remnick, the editor of The New Yorker, last November when he spoke in London about how he was "offended" that Europeans questioned US policies after 11 September. But as the marches this weekend have shown, disquiet is growing and the brave souls - including Hollywood actors, businessmen and academics - are standing up to protest. Muslims, hitherto almost paralysed by the new immigration registration schemes that target anyone brown - 500 people are in detention already - are also starting to take courage. Mahdi Bray, executive director of the Muslim American Society, has called for a joint struggle with African Americans against these violations and the war.

          (snip)

          "Stare at the monster: remark/ How difficult it is to define just what/ Amounts to monstrosity in that/ Very ordinary appearance." - Ted Hughes

          by MarkC on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:13:09 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I have heard that (none / 0)

      black people were a large part of the people who bought Stupid White Men (supposedly because of the title.) I have not read it, so I can not make any judgement about your alleged racism.

      Chomsky Fever! John McCain sucks.

      by miasmo on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 08:09:20 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Check the Census (none / 0)

      According to the US Census in 2000, New York County is 54.4% White, 17.4% black or African American, 9.4% "Asian persons", 27.2% Latino, 14.1% "persons reporting some other race", 4.1% "persons reporting two or more races."

      FYI, Kings County is 36.4% black or African American, Queens County is 20%, Bronx County is 35.6%, Richmond County is 9.7%

      New York QuickFacts from the US Census Bureau

      The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much;it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little-FDR

      by wells on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 08:10:45 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  We both well know (1.50 / 2)

        that the area where Moore lives in NYC is heavily affluent and less likely to be as diverse as other parts of Manhattan.

        by jiacinto on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 08:47:15 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh Get Off It (4.00 / 2)

          You made a fool of yourself with a dumb comment that's every bit as stupid as the one Moore is alleged to have made.  Just acknowledge it and move on.  I grew up outside NYC, and lived there for 13 years.  For about 2.5 years out of that time, I worked on 64th Street between Park and Lexington Avenues, and even in that exclusive neighborhood there were people of all races and ethnicities with whom I had daily contact, discourse, whatever you want to call it.  You would have to work awfully hard to avoid contact with African Americans if you live anywhere in Manhattan.

          "L'enfer, c'est les autres." - Jean Paul Sartre, Huis Clos

          "L'enfer, c'est le GOP!" - JJB, from an idea by oratorio

          by JJB on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:18:01 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  you need to shut up about this (4.00 / 4)

          You obviously haven't been there. If he lives where I think he does, I can tell you that he sees blacks, asians, and hispanics pretty much every time he's out on the street, especially if he goes over to the commercial avenues like Broadway and Amsterdam. Don't say ignorant things, because it weakens your credibility generally.

          By the way, the fact that you launch into this attack without checking your facts is an indicator that your resentment of Moore is making you irrational. I have all kinds of issues with Moore, but I've never felt less of a desire to air them than now. Sure, I think he says stupid things, that he sometimes puts African-Americans on a pedestal, etc., etc. Why go on a jihad about that now? Are you going to save us from Moore? We don't need saving.

          "We're borrowing money from China to buy oil from the Persian Gulf to burn it in ways that destroy the planet." Al Gore

          by jd in nyc on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:21:02 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Clearly you've never been there. (4.00 / 2)

          Let me add my concurrence to the others. I'm a foreign observer, no particular axe to grind, no American racial preconceptions. And I visit the Upper West Side of Manhattan for the day, maybe once or twice a month. Been doing this for going on to six years now. I ride the subways, shop for groceries, go to the local playgrounds with my 3-year-old grandson, watch the roller-bladers, walk through Central Park...

          Manhattan is the fantastic variety of faces and accents mingling on the sidewalks there, with all racial, ethnic, cultural, and linguistic differences totally taken for granted because they're so utterly commonplace.

          Just don't get in anyone's way so they have to break stride, that's all they care about. After that you can do and be whatever you like -- the only reaction to difference is a shrug.

          Folly is fractal: the closer you look at it, the more of it there is.

          by Canadian Reader on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 10:53:57 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Manhattan is not that big (4.00 / 2)

          Manhattan is a tiny island filled with multi-story buildings and lots of public spaces.  There is no sprawl.  Not a great distance between people.  Even if you try to exclude yourself you still have to ride the subway, work, shop for groceries, hang out in the park - it doesn't matter where you go, you walk past people of all races and all walks of life.

          The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much;it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little-FDR

          by wells on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 02:20:43 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  It was a satire (4.00 / 4)

      That "Kill Whitey" chapter intentionally took common racial stereotypes to logical but absurd conclusions.  It was meant to cause people to rethink certain assumptions they may have brought with them to the chapter.

      It was no more intended to be taken seriously than the section elsewhere on what wife-beaters should do to survive when their bed is set on fire ("call your local fire department in advance and make sure your home is on their 'violent husband--at risk for bedroom fire' list").

      The insinuation that the feces of John McCain, a former prisoner of war, would stink, is outrageous!

      by AdmiralNaismith on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:00:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  It's a good takedown (4.00 / 3)

    And a well-deserved and much-needed one too.  No matter what you think of his politics, Hitchens has a way with words, and can be very convincing to someone who doesn't stop to take apart what he's actually saying.  I read Hitchens' review before I saw the movie, and I was surprised by how little of what he said about the movie was an accurate characterization.  Parry's review rips most of Hitchens' review to shreds.

    by dtj on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 07:58:47 AM PDT

    •  YOu know, having read (4.00 / 5)

      poor old Hitch for 20 or more years... I suspect he still persists in thinking of himself as a "contrarian"... when what I see is a bitter insider's outsider, something along those lines.  Embraced, by now, by nearly no one.  Over years and years he has insulted, pushed away, turned on many people.  Maybe he has ended up more bitch then insightful writer with bitchy asides.  Unnattractive...

      A few months ago the Guardian had him write an elegy, memoriam for Edward Said, that he managed a beautiful piece of writing and an evocative memory of a beloved friend was a miracle.  He took a swipe or two at the end, but I wondered if he sobered up to write it and actually looked back at photos and writings pertinent to a quarter century (iirc) friendship.

      I think Hitch is lost in a haze of alcohol, forgetting and sheer meanness.  Very odd fellow, but it is one of the ways that "thinkers" fall apart. Always to be watched for lest one continue buying the product.

      by Marisacat on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 08:28:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  thanks so much! (none / 0)

    a coworker sent me a link to the Hitchens hatchet job yesterday, and this saved me the trouble of giving him a complete and thorough rebuttal.

    I think Chris Hitchens purposely bloated out this article in order to make responding to it an exhaustive and overwhelming task.

    "There are two kinds of people in the world. Those who believe there are only two kinds of people, and those who know better." - Tom Robbins

    by beedee on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 09:13:51 AM PDT

  •  I think... (none / 1)

    people like Hitchens and Dennis Miller are just snide little pricks. They like to feel superior to people - that's why they were liberals (so they could look down on the naive sheep) and that's why they're chickenhawks now (so they can look down on the naive sheep who don't "get" what this war is about). They're more interested in dazzling themselves with their own word-wrangling than truly understanding anything. They're just emotionless.

    by missanthropy on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 10:31:53 AM PDT

  •  Classic Hitchens! (none / 1)

    "If Michael Moore had had his way, Slobodan Milosevic would still be the big man in a starved and tyrannical Serbia. Bosnia and Kosovo would have been cleansed and annexed. If Michael Moore had been listened to, Afghanistan would still be under Taliban rule, and Kuwait would have remained part of Iraq. And Iraq itself would still be the personal property of a psychopathic crime family, bargaining covertly with the slave state of North Korea for WMD. You might hope that a retrospective awareness of this kind would induce a little modesty. To the contrary, it is employed to pump air into one of the great sagging blimps of our sorry, mediocre, celeb-rotten culture. Rock the vote, indeed."

    As for this Chris Parry, perhaps he ought to aquiant himself with the English laguage before attempting to communicate in it.  It's laughable that we're supposed to believe that Hitchens, long time writer for the Nation, is supposed to be a "partisan hack" for disagreeing with Moore.  For what party?  The Republicans.  

    He further seems to have difficulty with the meaning of the word "convoluted".  Chris, buy a dictionary.

    As for this:

    "Moore's point was clear - in order to make a military move on another government, people or person, you need to have your ducks lined up legally.  You can't just say "he's evil, so we're gonna get him," no matter how evil he may actually be. If you've got to build a case against Jeffery Dharmer, you've got to build a case against Bin Laden."

    It ignores the fact that at the time Moore and others were claiming a lack of sufficient evidence to procede against Bin Laden, there was a case.  There was a very strong case, and there were indictments, and UN resolutions as well.  The knee jerk acceptance of the Taliban propaganda line of the time, without regard to facts, makes both Parry and Moore come across as partisan hacks.  What party?  The Taliban, of course.

    A further example of revisionist history:

    "As for the 9/11 commission having nothing to complain about in that respect, Hitchens might be better served to note that the commission has said that their only mandate is to investigate the CAUSE of 9/11 - not the subsequent actions that may have helped capture (or free) the organizers of the attack. That means that such questions are outside their arena of interest and are a waste of their time."

    Apparently Parry didn't bother to check his own facts here.  Or to even read the link supplied by Hitchens, which contains this quote from Barbara Boxer regarding the commisions investigation into those flights:

    "They said it's been a part of their inquiry..."

    Nothing in Parry's explanations of the contents of the film contradicts in any way Hitchens' summary of it's contents - save his assertion that Moore nowhere suggests that the US should have sent more troops to Iraq.  And ammusingly, when Hitchens suggests that the film is as propagandistic as anything that would be produced by Al Jazeera, Parry feels compelled to defend the objectivity of Al-Jazeera.

    Even more interesting, Parry ignores the entire paragraph that preceded that:

    "We are introduced to Iraq, "a sovereign nation." (In fact, Iraq's "sovereignty" was heavily qualified by international sanctions, however questionable, which reflected its noncompliance with important U.N. resolutions.) In this peaceable kingdom, according to Moore's flabbergasting choice of film shots, children are flying little kites, shoppers are smiling in the sunshine, and the gentle rhythms of life are undisturbed. Then--wham! From the night sky come the terror weapons of American imperialism. Watching the clips Moore uses, and recalling them well, I can recognize various Saddam palaces and military and police centers getting the treatment. But these sites are not identified as such."

    If this description is accurate, then Hitchens is fully justified in describing this as reckless and irresponsible propoganda.  Film is a visual medium.  Just as it is not qppropriate to use an image of Bush meeting with Tony Blair to create an impression of him as being on vacation, it is not appropriate to use selective editing to create a false impression of both pre and post-war Iraq.

    I have no problem with the Moore being a partisan hack or propagandist, or even a left-wing answer to Rush Limbaugh.  At his best he's enourmously entertaining.  But let's not pretend he ought to be taken seriously.  If I had any doubts about Hitchens piece, it was whether any of this really needed to be said.  But judging from the response, it did.

    (-4.62, -3.28: Left/Libertarian)

    by acerimusdux on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 10:50:57 AM PDT

  •  i agree with moore. (none / 0)

    but i think its more of a class issue. black people, in general, are forced to deal with harsh realities of existence much more than a suburban "whitey". threats of physical and psychological violence are more of an everyday thing in the 'hood/ghetto; people are better emotionally equipped to deal with such threats through experience. that said, i think the same could be said of poor whites, latins, etc. i think i planeload of brothers woulda bitchslapped them loco jihadists.

    by satansbigredass on Tue Jun 29, 2004 at 11:12:41 AM PDT

Permalink | 47 comments