I suppose that I should expect logical disconnects from Kevin Drum as simply being part of the game. Part of the package. Example:
It’s true that I wish Michael Moore were a wee bit more scrupulous with the facts in his films, but I sometimes wonder if he doesn’t insert random distortions into his movies deliberately. With rare exceptions, after all, they’re small things that could just as easily have been presented correctly without damaging his narrative at all. But the end result is the kind of publicity money can’t buy, and it’s the sweetest kind of publicity of all: the kind that’s subsidized by his enemies, who helpfully boost ticket sales by furiously denouncing his films for weeks on end.
So here we have Drum willing to accept at face value, Moore’s statements, lies and all, without question. Better, we have him on record as stating so, flatly.
With SiCKO, though, I’m willing to bet Moore mostly sticks to the facts
Ummmm Yeah, I suppose you would.
One suspects that this willingness is because it matches Mr. Drum’s political world view. It’s less challenging for Mr. Drum to accept Mr. Moore, lies and all, at face value. Easier than actual thought. Drum’s logic never quite makes it so far as to understand that if Moore is lying about THIS, he is far more likely to be lying about THAT. To come that understanding, would be to force oneself to admit that their world view is also a lie.
Given their demonstrated limited capacity for actual thought, would someone please explain to me why anyone takes either one of these two people seriously?
