5:30 am - watching Michael Moore speech for Bernie. a very good

[jg10003]

And effective speech. Passionate, persuasive, and entertaining.

[NNadir]

1. Yeah, Michael Moore was also great at making speeches for Ralph Nader.

He, like the person he is praising, thinks himself the superior of Democrats, even though he, like the people he supports for President are in fact smug, simplistic fools.

[ms liberty]

2. Because people who are condescending snobs are so much better, amirite?

[NNadir]

3. This is an interesting question, although perhaps you didn't intend it to be so.

Too much of the world is connected with snark, which is how, I believe your remark about "condescending snobs" was intended.

However it raises a point. Michael Moore is, in my view, a master of what I would regard as obscene snark. Imagine you were the mother, or sister, or father or brother of a kid blown away in a mass shooting. Were I such a person, I would regard the use of the term "Bowling for Columbine" as obscene, but I'm speaking only for myself.

We live in an age of the celebration of ignorance as a value in itself, and in things like Twitter, we like to assume that everything can be reduced to a hundred words or less - since I have never used twitter I don't know what the world limit actually is - but let's say 100.

A deeper understanding of reality, of course, cannot be fit into a hundred words or less. One has to work at knowledge, spend almost all of their working and even non-working day investing in it. When one has done so, one of course, risks being thought of as a "condescending snob" by people who prefer soundbites and tweets, but it is a risk that I, for one, am willing to take.

I would rather be thought of as a "condescending snob" because I have worked at understanding reality, than be a "tweeting snot" who thinks that the world should involve admiring "tweets."

Michael Moore is no intellectual. He is not a person invested in solving problems in a realistic way. He is merely a fool who stands aloof, and in his own weak mind, above the fray, because he's smug and removed.

The fact is, he has no idea about how to remake the world, and because of his personal and intellectual limitation, were he, or Sanders, granted the power to do so, I'm not entirely sure that the outcome would be all that different than the orange nightmare.

Now, in my opinion, the candidate you support, according to the DU preference display, Elizabeth Warren, is an intellectual. Clearly she thinks, and she has a record of changing her mind and doing so because of data inputs. I disagree with her on many things, the most important being the issue most important to me, climate change, but I nevertheless think she would make an outstanding President.

By contrast, neither Sanders, nor Nader, nor Moore has had an original practical idea in decades.

Would Sanders be superior to Trump? Of course, and if faced with this awful choice, the inflexible racist senile old fart in the White House and the inflexible old white Senator of Vermont, the Senator is preferable by far. But the Senator from Vermont would not save the country, but simply slow but not address the decline. Like Moore, his ability to think is limited. If the goal is to save the country, and not merely to free the White House from vermin, the Senator from Massachusetts is someone who well might save the country from the destruction wrought. She can think.

Thanks for your note. To be perfectly clear and to respond clearly, I do prefer condescending snobs, including those from whom I have learned many things over my life by putting aside emotional insecurity in favor of learning, to "tweeting snots" but that is merely my opinion, and you are of course free to disagree.