Michael Moore, What exactly did you expect?
I think why Michael Moore is where he is, is his willingness to engage in the same kind of language as those he criticizes. When you engage in the same language of what you’re criticizing you become what you criticize. So naturally he is hypocrite and the language of taking sides on issues with preconceived agenda is going to be problematic. Moore looks for ways to construct information in support his attacks on character rather then an analysis of that information. You won’t see Chomsky calling bush a liar.

This is how our current mainstream political climate functions one of attack on character with use of a language of contradiction. Moore is engaging in that language of contradictions. All his ideas are not without merit, but he is engaged in this language of attacks and name-calling. This approach diminishes his capacity for contradiction-free intellectually convincing arguments, but simultaneously allows him to be become a successful information distributor making millions of dollars reaching a large audience spawning websites that criticism/attack him etc. just like his parallels on the “right”.

Christopher Hitchens pice can be compared to Al Franken book where he rips apart Ann Cultures work via an array of contradictory “facts”. But I wonder how productive it to buy into this Michael Moore bashing, I did not finish Al Frankens book because of its endless attacks of character, which where entertaining but not intellectually convincing. When people ask question like why does Michael Moore hate America they are not really dealing with any ideas he might have presented, rather are engaged in endless mindless attack gibberish. In that way their criticism adopts Moores language and often fails to impress. Not that Hitchens piece was not well written, its just that it points out what should be obvious. Moore is presenting a biased perspective and from the opposite side of that perspective it is going to seem like he is sadistically lying like crazy, from a perspective with some shared values, it is going to look like he is using selective information and engaged in the language of those he is criticizing.

I don’t understand why people expect to get contradiction free political commentary from someone that is admittedly bias and is perusing has a stated agenda. At least he does not say he is objective like some entities seem to be capable of claiming.

Update Oreilly vs Moore illustrates this

An interesting interview with Nadder ... Helps identify and separate corporate conservatism and social conservatism.