I just finished reading Stupid White Men. Overall I enjoyed the book. Michael Moore can be hilarious and his politics are pretty much in line with mine. The problem I have with writing like his is that I don't find it all that helpful. I pretty much read the book, chuckled now and then and once in awhile nodded thinking, "No shit."

But there is a lot of grey area. The book borders on the absurd sometimes and you don't always know when he's being real and when he's just taking a jab. So as far as being able to quote the book as a source, it's almost completely useless. In a real argument over politics I can't come back with, "Yeah, well according to Michael Moore, Bush is only the 'acting president.' You can look it up if you want." I'd sound like an idiot.

I run into the same problem with Noam Chomsky. Even if you don't agree with his politics (as I generally do) you have to admit that man is a brilliant linguist. But he uses a kind of vernacular that renders a lot of his writing useless I think. You have to understand the analysis behind his choices of words. I think read several of his essays before I understood how he could call Clinton a "neo-liberal." I had no idea what he meant. I found that to back up my arguments that were based on his writings, I had to find his sources and apply my own Chomskian analysis so that I fully understood what he meant. Just quoting his writing made me look like a fool.

I suppose that's what it's all about. Chomsky wouldn't want me just regurtitating his ideas. He'd be the first to say that you should analyze the information for yourself. It's just so damn much work.