NYT Opinion Page: "The Trouble with Sanjay Gupta" by Paul Krugman

[DEMON CUNT]

January 6, 2009, 4:44 PM


The trouble with Sanjay Gupta by Paul Krugman

So apparently Obama plans to appoint CNN’s Sanjay Gupta as Surgeon General. I don’t have a problem with Gupta’s qualifications. But I do remember his mugging of Michael Moore over Sicko. You don’t have to like Moore or his film; but Gupta specifically claimed that Moore “fudged his facts”, when the truth was that on every one of the allegedly fudged facts, Moore was actually right and CNN was wrong.

More... (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/01/06/the-trouble-with-sanjay-gupta/)
_________________________

Reference:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/oR2U_SAWHdQ&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/oR2U_SAWHdQ&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

More about Paul Krugman Here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Krugman)

Here's the Moore appearance on the Blitzer Wolf's show where Michael burns the motherfucking house down. Hate him all you want, but you gotta admit the guy's got some balls.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/JpKoN40K7mA&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/JpKoN40K7mA&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

For the record, I think that Sanjay Gupta is a smarmy douche of the highest order and a lousy pick for GM.

ROTH ARMY Neocon challenge: Please have something other to say than "I hate Michael Moore..." "He's fat..." "He's a big dummy..." How about some substance for a change, you fuckballs!

[LoungeMachine]

GM?

The Seahawks need a GM.....

SG is what DC was meaning..... :)

:gulp:

[hideyoursheep]

I hate Michael Moore... He's fat... He's a big dummy...











:lol:

[Sgt Schultz]

All we need to do is look at Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 to know what we are delaing with. The Hitch gets it right about Moore.

Some excerpts from Christopher Hitchen’s
Unfairenheit 9/11
The lies of Michael Moore.
Posted Monday, June 21, 2004 on Slate.com

“To describe this film [Fahrenheit 9/11] as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.”

“Perhaps vaguely aware that his movie so completely lacks gravitas, Moore concludes with a sonorous reading of some words from George Orwell. The words are taken from 1984 and consist of a third-person analysis of a hypothetical, endless, and contrived war between three superpowers. The clear intention, as clumsily excerpted like this (...) is to suggest that there is no moral distinction between the United States, the Taliban, and the Baath Party and that the war against jihad is about nothing. If Moore had studied a bit more, or at all, he could have read Orwell really saying, and in his own voice, the following:

The majority of pacifists either belong to obscure religious sects or are simply humanitarians who object to taking life and prefer not to follow their thoughts beyond that point. But there is a minority of intellectual pacifists, whose real though unacknowledged motive appears to be hatred of western democracy and admiration for totalitarianism. Pacifist propaganda usually boils down to saying that one side is as bad as the other, but if one looks closely at the writing of the younger intellectual pacifists, one finds that they do not by any means express impartial disapproval but are directed almost entirely against Britain and the United States …

And that's just from Orwell's Notes on Nationalism in May 1945. A short word of advice: In general, it's highly unwise to quote Orwell if you are already way out of your depth on the question of moral equivalence. It's also incautious to remind people of Orwell if you are engaged in a sophomoric celluloid rewriting of recent history.

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. “

Read the whole article….

http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/

[Nickdfresh]

All we need to do is look at Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 to know what we are delaing with. The Hitch gets it right about Moore.

Some excerpts from Christopher Hitchen’s
...
Read the whole article….

http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/

Um, WTF does this have to do with "Sicko?"

Secondly, Christopher Hitchens is a complete douche who has completely contradicted himself as any good Neocon has - by undergoing a life transformation of 1960s leftist, Marxist-Lenisist to right wing nationalist douche bag interventionist working under false pretenses...two ideologies that are manipulative and self destructive and are far more closely related than their adherents would care to admit...

Fuck him!

Hitchens gets owned, hard. Here:

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/AAja9Q1gWsk&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/AAja9Q1gWsk&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

[DEMON CUNT]

All we need to do is look at Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 to know what we are delaing with. The Hitch gets it right about Moore.[/URL]

Schlutz, how do you know that Hitchens has it right?

“To describe Hitchens as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability."

Jeepers! That is, quite possibly, one of the most pretentious things that I have ever read from Mr. Hitchens. And I consider myself a fan. The first 2/3 of 'God Is Not Great' is fantastic. The rest of the book reads much like this article. There are also no footnotes in that book, by the way, just a 'reference' in that back. Feel free to pick that up at your local independent book store, Schlutz.

Feel free to read Moore's Factual Back-Up For Fahrenheit 9/11 (http://www.michaelmoore.com/books-films/f911reader/index.php?id=16) after you have watched the movie, of course! It is also available in print and it covers every minute of the film.