NYPress publishes their list of "The 50 Most Loathsome New Yorkers." It's a fun little bit of NY for us bumpkins out here in rectangular, red states. Equal whacks at the right and left, but I will highlight #3:
"Slagging on this pandering blowhard is nothing new--especially not in these pages--but he makes it so easy. In the despicable Bowling for Columbine, the lumbering behemoth makes fun of working-class whites in order to make over-educated whites feel better about themselves. His arguments against gun control are simplistic, weak and mired in the cloying stink of self-service, which smells suspiciously like a fat man's crack. Every time Moore comes out in support of a liberal band or politician or fellow celebrity, as he proved last Sunday night, the hardworking, intelligent and reasoned left is degraded by association. It's time for activists to jettison the ballast that is Michael Moore and start repairing the damage."
Thanks to wunderkinder!
Disgusting. That's my review of the rest of list of "The 50 Most Loathsome New Yorkers." This neo-liberal rant of gratuitous profanity has no business being promoted on these fine pages, despite their impaling of the obviously deserving Michael Moore. In addition they villify Henry Kissenger, Larry Silverstein, John Negroponte, Paul Gigot, and Ann Coulter. No, I don't encourage suppression of dissent, but this vulgar slander is beneath the purposes of civilization. Please find instead a sober thrashing of Moore to post, like this one: http://www.opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003233
Posted by: JohnGalt at March 30, 2003 07:53 AMOkay, I winced when I read the venomous attacks of Paul Gigot and Dr. K (though both are rather capable of taking care of themselves). Ms. Coulter can take care of herself and might be upset that she did not score higher.
I liked it as a prime example of the catty-Newyawk-gossip genre. And, for a left-leaning publication, they did take whacks at Yoko Ono, Ted Rall, Woody Allen, Michale Moore, Tina Brown, et all. Moore and Rall at #3 and #2.
Yes it was vulgar, left-leaning, childish and snippy -- but "unsuitable for 'these fine pages?'" Well I just dunno...
Posted by: jk at March 30, 2003 04:40 PM