Al Franken's book is garbage
My fiancee's father thought I might like Al Franken's new book for Christmas. Why he thought I might be intereted in an entire book of partisan bitching I have no idea. (To give you a hint, he gave my fiancee (his daughter) Hillary's book.)
So I'm reading this thing and it's pure crap. Not because it makes fun of Coulter and O'Reilly and such, that's fine, Coulter is a clown and O'Reilly needs serious help, I knew that before this book.
If this is the level of debate the masses engage in then I'm truly frightened. Not only that, but this type is actually a notch above the mass view of the political spectrum.
At least he's funny, I don't know if I could even touch a Coulter or O'Reilly book if someone gave one to me.
And to think, my Amazon wish list sits untouched... ye freaking gods.
So I'm reading this thing and it's pure crap. Not because it makes fun of Coulter and O'Reilly and such, that's fine, Coulter is a clown and O'Reilly needs serious help, I knew that before this book.
If this is the level of debate the masses engage in then I'm truly frightened. Not only that, but this type is actually a notch above the mass view of the political spectrum.
At least he's funny, I don't know if I could even touch a Coulter or O'Reilly book if someone gave one to me.
And to think, my Amazon wish list sits untouched... ye freaking gods.
Comments
THAT argument slides both ways.
Originally posted by Akumulator
I would wipe my ass with pages from Franken's book over Coulter's or O'Reilly's book(s) anyday.
toilet paper isn't that much money man. surely less than those books.
Originally posted by applenut
toilet paper isn't that much money man. surely less than those books.
Toilet paper, even the cheapest kind, is also way more comfortable than using thick hardbound book pages.
Originally posted by groverat
If this is the level of debate the masses engage in then I'm truly frightened. Not only that, but this type is actually a notch above the mass view of the political spectrum.
That's a very dim critique. Could you be more specific? I, of course, revel in this kind of stuff, and I thought the book was actually quite good. Never exaggerating, like Michael Moore does ad nauseam in his new book. Overall fair and balanced, although he did of course target the other side, and the choice of subject matter is half the ticket.
Originally posted by groverat
My fiancee's father thought I might like Al Franken's new book for Christmas. Why he thought I might be intereted in an entire book of partisan bitching I have no idea. (To give you a hint, he gave my fiancee (his daughter) Hillary's book.)
Welcome in your new family
Perhaps "garbage" is strong, but taking into consideration that this book is selling in large numbers and people actually think that the idea of "fighting melodramatic fire with melodramatic fire" is a sound one I think the word is applicable.
When I think of a worthwhile political book I think of Nokolai Chernyshevsky's "What Is To Be Done?" or anything whose main focus is not exposing the lies of politik-entertainers.
I haven't read Michael Moore's latest book but I have no idea what he would even write about. It's all sound and fury, signifying nothing.
His book does a good job of busting apart some of the myths that were put forward by the loonies leading the recent blind charge. It was needed and it was well down in that regard. But, yeah, it was thin.
As for the level of debate, that was clearly more a result of the ridiculousness people like coulter, o'reilly, hannity and groups like the bush admin brought us to.
As for the level of debate, that was clearly more a result of the ridiculousness people like coulter, o'reilly, hannity and groups like the bush admin brought us to.
I do not understand this argument. It is a rationalized "they started it!"
"If you want me to spend as much time breaking down why his book is a waste of time as he spends breaking down how Ann Coulter is a liar you're out of luck, friend."
I thought the title of the book was "Lies: And the lying liars who tell them" Shouldn't he be talking about the lies and those who tell them? Oh wait, that would be considered on topic.
Originally posted by groverat
I do not understand this argument. It is a rationalized "they started it!"
Don't forget: Al Franken has a penchant for comedy. And: it's not because a rhetorical vehicle is most often used by children that it should be shunned in the 'real' world (at least, IMO). Coulter and friends speak of Treason, Arrogance, Slander and whatnot, all the while passing the vibe that they are above all that. Is it not interesting to see revealed that they are not? I do think so.
Of course, I would agree that one cannot but realise that this is a very temporal book, relevant only in the now and the near tomorrow. Hardly anyone will care about any of this in ten years' time.
he just went back to plan one.
it is funny.
but everyones treating it like it's a manifesto!
I went over to Coulter's site to see if she had anyting to say for herself, read a rebuttal, and came away thinking that Franken has crafted a hysterical hit piece.
hmmm....don't know if he's nuts, but I wouldn't pay to find out.
Is it not interesting to see revealed that they are not? I do think so.
I already knew they were, I didn't need a book to tell me this. Someone showing me that O'Reilly is a lying hypocritical egomaniac is like someone showing me that Michael Jackson is very weird and creepy.
So, perhaps, for those who believe that the FoxNews and Coulter crowd are not horrendous liars and egomaniacs the book would be very worthwhile. It comes across TO ME as bitter preaching-to-the-choir.
This book is one of those.
Fellows
Originally posted by groverat
It comes across TO ME as bitter preaching-to-the-choir.
That I'd have to agree with. The intended audience will never read the book, or will dismiss its contents on whatever grounds they may find.
However: the part where Franken discusses in some depth the US' policy against terrorism from the Clinton era all the way to and past 9/11. Revealing for anyone, I reckon. Not just a gratuitous blackening of Forehead Boy (as I've heard O'Reilly be called).
Originally posted by der Kopf
However: the part where Franken discusses in some depth the US' policy against terrorism from the Clinton era all the way to and past 9/11. Revealing for anyone, I reckon. Not just a gratuitous blackening of Forehead Boy (as I've heard O'Reilly be called).
This is an extremely manipulative portion of the book. A lot of it is funny, the way he makes fun of GeeDub's incessant vacation-taking, but his "Operation Ignore" stuff rings hollow when he outlines how Clinton (who he is trying to set up as master anti-terrorism guy) moved even more slowly on this issue. It took 8 months for Bush' team to get Homeland Security as an executive office to the fore (before 9/11), but it took 8 years for Clinton to even get the idea started.
Of course, he's defending Clinton so he doesn't point it out, but as I read it it stuck out like red type on the page.
This is why the book is garbage. It's got good stuff, but ultimately it ends up as BizarrO'Reilly
Originally posted by groverat
This is an extremely manipulative portion of the book. A lot of it is funny, the way he makes fun of GeeDub's incessant vacation-taking, but his "Operation Ignore" stuff rings hollow when he outlines how Clinton (who he is trying to set up as master anti-terrorism guy) moved even more slowly on this issue. It took 8 months for Bush' team to get Homeland Security as an executive office to the fore (before 9/11), but it took 8 years for Clinton to even get the idea started.
Of course, he's defending Clinton so he doesn't point it out, but as I read it it stuck out like red type on the page.
This is why the book is garbage. It's got good stuff, but ultimately it ends up as BizarrO'Reilly
Good luck Grove. I spent a similar thread discussing this sort of nonsense. I discussed how Clinton, after having been begged for 8 years signed an executive order lowering arsenic levels that took effect 4 years after he left office.
This made him terrific, and a great guy, and a wonderful environmentalist according to Franken.
Bush put a stay on the order, had new research and ultimately issued an order for the same standards.
This made him evil, a friend of industry, and of course he hates the planet and wants it to be a dead smoking cinder that he and his rich buddies will leave.
I haven't read a book by Coulter or O'Reilly. I have stumbled across and read the occasional Coulter column and it is obvious she is similar in comedy to Franken. Yet of course no one would expect Franken to be called a liar for not really b1tchslapping Bernie Goldberg, etc.
It is sort of a ridiculous book. I spent a good 70 minutes and got through most of it at Barnes and Noble just ignoring the O'Reilly sections. (Since I don't really care about O'Reilly.) I couldn't imagine it ever convincing anyone anywhere to change their view about anything.
Nick
Franken's satirical Lies (9/12)
Some point from SpinSanity
...
For the most part, Franken does get his facts right. His deconstruction of Ann Coulter's Slander (which he notes relies in part on my review of Coulter's book for this site and Salon), is excellent, as is his evisceration of Sean Hannity andLet Freedom Ring.
At least one item, however, slipped by his staff of Harvard volunteers. In his chapter on President Clinton's record on terrorism, Franken erroneously claims that Washington Post reporter Barton Gellman wrote in a December 20, 2001 article that Clinton's was "the first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terror effort." (p. 110) In fact, that quote comes from Clinton National Security Advisor Sandy Berger, who told Gellman that "I think the Clinton administration was the first administration to undertake a systematic anti-terror effort ? organizationally, in terms of resources and in terms of anti-terrorist activity." (Franken does correctly quote Gellman earlier in the paragraph).
...
While Franken laces his book with attacks on conservatives, such as facetiously declaring that his next book will be titled "I F*cking Hate Those Right-Wing Motherf*ckers!" (p. 107), most of his partisan rhetoric is clearly marked as sarcastic and satirical. That humor, however, often degenerates into name-calling: Ari Fleischer is a "chimp," (p. 341); Karl Rove is "human filth," (p. 151), Ashcroft covered up a statue in the Justice Department because "He didn't like being photographed in front of another boob" (p. 161).
Other parts of the book blur the line between humor and spin even further. For example, he characterizes Bush's anti-terror efforts prior to September 11 as "Operation Ignore" (this comes just after a chapter rehabilitating Clinton's record on terrorism and skewering conservative pundits for misrepresenting it). One such passage from the chapter of the same title illustrates how Franken hides behind satire to imply things than he can't prove:
Now, on August 6, CIA Director Tenet delivered a report to President Bush entitled "Al Qaeda Determined to Strike US." The report warned that al Qaeda might be planning to hijack airplanes. But the President was resolute: Operation Ignore must proceed as planned. He did nothing to follow up on the memo. (p. 120)
While Franken's facts are technically correct, and he is clearly being more than a bit satirical with the passage, he uses that humor to insinuate a much darker charge against the President. Another example comes later in the book, in a chapter entitled "Fun With Racism":
I'm not saying that all Republicans are racist or that all racists are Republican. That would be reprehensible overstatement, akin to something Ann Coulter might say. But if Ann were a Democrat, she would point out that, after years of declining under Clinton, black poverty is now on the increase... And she'd blame it all on Bush. She'd claims it was because of deliberate, overt racism, rather than his more general bias towards the already privileged. She might even say his tax cut is inherently racist...
But that's Ann. I personally would never accuse Bush's tax cuts of being racially motivated. I just think that, very generally speaking, they happen to hurt black people and help rich people. Who tend, again generally, to be white. That's all I'm saying. (p. 259)
While that may be all that Franken is saying, he's implying something much different, and more much inflammatory ? a technique closer to some of Coulter's than Franken might like to admit.
Much of the book operates in this region between humor and outright distortion. Given Franken's stated dedication to getting his facts straight, one is left with the feeling that he is using his humor to imply things he can't honestly argue for.
...
I haven't read a book by Coulter or O'Reilly. I have stumbled across and read the occasional Coulter column and it is obvious she is similar in comedy to Franken. Yet of course no one would expect Franken to be called a liar for not really b1tchslapping Bernie Goldberg, etc.
She is not similar to Franken in comedy. Franken is actually funny and he is a professional comedian. She is not funny, and it's not just a matter of sense of humor, she has bitter sarcasm and only the vein of ridicule. And that's not satirical, that's the refuge of someone who wants to express anger and doesn't know how to do it any other way.
Let's at least be honest about everyone's strengths and weaknesses. Franken is a professional comedian; Coulter is angry and audacious enough to draw an audience and looks good enough on TV to keep them interested.
They are both partisan shills, of course.