Carpe Datum

Back and Forth

Along the same lines as my comment on Moore's movie yesterday, I was also reminded of another piece of work that conservatives criticize in a knee-jerk fashion without, of course, actually reading it: the work of Al Franken. Al really gets to the heart of the matter in his books. As he repeatedly explains, the reason one cannot equate his work for the left with the work of someone like Limbaugh, Hannity, etc. for the right is that, unlike those clowns, Franken TELLS THE TRUTH.

Now, of course, they all *claim* to tell the truth, but catching right-wing nutballs out on lies is easier than shooting fish in a barrel. Here is the Center for American Progress picking out 15 lies more or less at random from Hannity, representative of the lies on big issues he repeats every day on radio and in his books. Franken himself has done Limbaugh, and lots of websites monitor right wing talk shows, such as Media Matters.

The right-wing folks are trying to do the same thing with Franken, but they are finding it a lot harder. There's a "Franken Lies" website that lots of conservatives link to, even though it is clear few of them have actually read his book. Well, sorry to disappoint, nutballs, but it turns out that website is full of crap, as documented by its counterpart website, The Lying Lies of Frankenlies.

It's a real headache to get your hands dirty in all this stuff, you know. That's why, when I decided to respond to that idiot's "top 20 liberal beliefs" myths, I took my time and set out to argue each of the "stupid conservative myths" in turn. I tried to deal with it slowly and carefully, rather than having a lengthy multi-topic debate in comments, and the result is a body of work that is informative and open to checking out. It is useful, because it outlines and illuminates the real issues instead of just being dishonest (or at least not serious) in return.

Although it is a pain in the ass to slog through the back and forth, back and forth, it is actually amazingly educational, because it reveals that one side (my side) is dealing with facts (as a general rule ... there are *always* exceptions) and the other side (Bush-supporters) is just throwing shit at the wall in desperation (as a general rule .. there are *always* exceptions), hoping the average Moron American will pull a "pox on both houses" stunt and assume both sides are equally full of crap. It usually works, too. People don't have the time or the interest for this stuff, and that is exactly what Bush-supporters depend upon to sell their message. This is why I agree with the sentiment that they are one of the most cynical campaigns ever run, and they're trolling for fools.

If you actually bother to research what Franken's critics are saying, yeah, you find 2 or 3 minor inconsistencies (and Franken's supporters admit to this, and you can expect corrections in later editions of Franken's books ... try saying the same about any right-wing screed). To give you an example ... I said above that Hannity lies "every day" on the radio. Well, some conservative web site would come back and say "AHA! Liar! Hannity isn't on every day!" Well, ok, fine, but nowhere do Franken's critics ever find a misleading statement or a lie that has any substance or relevance. Hell, nobody's perfect, but there's a distinct difference between simple inaccuracy or insignificant sloppiness and a malicious intent to mislead.

When Clinton testified under oath, he clearly had an intent to mislead, and he was rightly criticized for that, but people like Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter and their ilk do this kind of shit for a living, and they are praised to high heaven. Anyway, if you are going to go along with the notion that Franken isn't being honest, you should at least check at the facts and references for yourself. There *is* a level at which these things are documented, at which point the debate ends, and one side is proven right. Follow back-and-forth sites on Franken or Hannity, for example, and you'll see what I mean. You'll see that intellectual dishonesty is the currency of the conservative realm.

The most problematic of liberal pundits is Michael Moore. There *were* many inaccuracies in his work in the past, and for all I know, his latest movie may have a bunch more. I really hope not, and I look forward to seeing what the fact-checkers come up with on "9/11". I know one thing for sure, though. Moore's movie could be nothing but Moore on screen reciting the Constitution, and conservatives would gin up a website in 15 minutes pointing out 20 "lies". It's Moore's own fault because of his past work (in part ... Moore still intentionally misleads *far less* than Bush-supporters do on a regular basis), but conservatives have successfully labelled him as basically the same kind of guy as Limbaugh or Hannity in the minds of most Moron Americans.

If Moore is going to be relevant to this debate, he has to rise above that. I hope he does. I hope this movie is absolutely unimpeachable, because he is a talent, and he has a chance to genuinely change some peoples' minds. There are *plenty* of things you can say about Bush to make the case against the man, and there is no need to lie about it. This is the worst administration in history. The truth will out.

Posted by Observer at June 20, 2004 07:35 AM