Baseball Crank: POP CULTURE/POLITICS: The Wrath of Cannes

May 19, 2004

POP CULTURE/POLITICS: The Wrath of Cannes

In a less-than-shocking turn of events, The New York Times fawningly reports that Michael Moore’s Bush-bashing, September 11-exploiting film received a huge standing ovation at the Cannes Film Festival in France.

Though I sometimes get dragged into taking his bait, I generally don’t like talking about Moore...for a few reasons. Obviously, like most people, I find his shrill, attention-seeking, anti-American schtick tiresome and not terribly interesting. From an artistic point of view, I thought “Roger & Me” was an incredibly facile, manipulative film and generally feel that he hasn’t done anything useful since directing “Canadian Bacon”, which was amusing. Mainly, however, it’s all too easy to fall into the trap of bolstering your own views simply by pointing out how repellent those on the fringes are. Every brain cell expended reading about the likes of Moore is one that can be better spent engaging the views of moderate and thoughtful people with differing thoughts on world events.

Posted by The Mad Hibernian at 09:29 AM | Politics 2004 • | Pop Culture | Comments (3) | TrackBack (0)

Comments

Hear hear. Michael Moore is the Limbaugh of the left, and debating either one of them is like winning an arm-wrestling contest with a third grader. It doesn't prove you're strong; it just means you aren't as weak as they are.

Posted by: Brian at May 19, 2004 12:00 PM

The fringes indeed.

And for some reason you never rise to take the bait tossed out by Limburgh and Coulter.

Posted by: C Giddy at May 20, 2004 10:29 PM

I don’t really have respect for Coulter. Both the Crank (several times) and I have occasionally written about that, including me here:

http://www.baseballcrank.com/archives/002646.php

Limbaugh I used to listen to when I was younger, but don’t really anymore. I think he serves a purpose – he is good at articulating the core, undistilled beliefs of conservatism - but as you get older it all seems a little too simplistic, especially when he slips into attack mode. I also think his personal problem may have taken a toll on his work.

It’s fair to say that picking apart the arguments of either of them isn’t rocket science. Of course, while more moderate, I’m still a lot closer to either of them ideologically than Moore, who’s views I think are not just on the fringes but also, for lack of a better word, wrong.

Posted by: The Mad Hibernian at May 20, 2004 11:38 PM