Just for the record, again
At first glance, it’s a trash piece about Hollywood excess: an embarrassing, but still deliciously fluffy, read. But no: it’s really a prolonged right-wing rant about how Hollywood liberals are corrupting both themselves and us.
And it’s written in the standard tone of such rants: polemical, condescending towards the reader, and packed with “you know I’m right” rhetoric. Take this one as an example:
“Hollywood thinks it’s cute to glamorize illegitimacy. Hollywood doesn’t get it,” Vice President Dan Quayle railed in 1992. “It doesn’t help matters when prime time TV has Murphy Brown, a character who supposedly symbolizes today’s intelligent, highly paid professional woman, mocking the importance of fathers by bearing a child alone, and calling it just another lifestyle choice.” […]So, if you disagree, you’re an idiot, right? Prejudicial language at its best.
Anyone with a smidgen of common sense knows that Quayle was, in essence, right.
Five pages later, this gem, in response to Angelina Jolie’s decision to raise her adopted child alone:
Why is there no concern whatsoever on placing a full-time male role model permanently in his life? Didn’t Anthony Perkin’s star turn as Norman Bates lay out the inevitable ending of that horror story line?*boggle*
So their model for the “inevitable” consequences is Psycho — a work of fiction? Two inductive fallacies for the price of one: a hasty generalisation from an unrepresentative sample.
Regardless of the politics: this reasoning is so bad, and so gratuitously lazy, that it’s insulting. Do people really believe this crap?
Back to the library you go. And a mental note made. An Ann Coulter blurb on the back cover: a good marker of poor rhetoric within.