October 09, 2008
October 08, 2008
Lord Almighty, these are dull debates. They're excruciatingly dull. They induce a kind of physical pain after the first twenty minutes or so. They don't seem to be about anything.
October 06, 2008
True. But as I have often thought, and then said, in some ways we should be reassured that Saint Thomas Aquinas was right: you really can trust the authority of your senses. Under what economic theory can a nation actually spend its way to prosperity? If you base your economy on consumer spending, to the 70% level, and if the largest single sector of that same economy is "financialization," that is, money manipulation, isn't that economy bound to crash as soon as the citizenry runs out of money?
October 05, 2008
I think Bill Maher probably owes a debt of gratitude to Michael Moore for devising the concept of the auteur-political documentary, distinguished by the direct involvement of the filmmaker in the Q&A sessions making up the bulk of the movie. Maher's "Religulous" is better than Moore's agitprop movies because Maher has a sharper focus and a keener wit than Moore, and does not engage in the kind of emotional bathos Moore typically uses to win over his audience. Bill Maher doesn't really use emotional content at all; his movie about religion, and about its clear and present danger to human survival, is aimed "more at the head than the heart," as Boris reviews the short drama about VD during the Napeolonic wars in "Love & Death." (Obscure reference for the cognoscenti only.) While the professional reviewers attack Maher for his insensitive badgering of the pious, Bill is obviously angry at the overwhelming of political life in America and elsewhere by religious doctrine and he lets fly. To hilarious effect.