Fahrenheit 911 - Michael Moore

[Silur]

@Weasel: One reason to watch pinko lefties bash right extremist warmongers is that you have been forcefed the opposite for almost four years.

I have now seen the movie "Bowling for Columbine" to get a better personal view of MM (and it happened to be on cable ). I still don't like him as a person, but I completely agree with the message he is trying to portray. I cannot see that the way he presents his information is in any way different from how those opposing him do (in this movie's case the NRA). Both sides oversimplify, exaggerate the emotional aspects and use cheap comical punchlines - in short, treating their audience like morons. My guess is that the intended audience isn't that bright. In difference to most of his opponents, however, he gets his statistics right. He also asks a large number of important questions that are well worth contemplating, and he also leaves some of them unanswered thus making the film bearable for someone of normal intelligence (albeit just barely).

[Silur]

[QUOTE=Nightmare]Also, he doesn't exclusively bash Republicans, either...IIRC, he's bashed Democrats numerous times as well.[/QUOTE]

That's because he's far to the "left" of the Democrats too. In fact, there are very few parties in the world that aren't "left" of both the Republicans AND the Democrats. Besides, the terms "left" and "right" are very unfashionable, since there are no real ideologies left in the world.

[Chanak]

There is actually a great deal of social commentary to be found in films and books, if one looks closely enough. Often it is subtle. Personally, I enjoy zooming out, so to speak, and looking at it all...which can often be a rather yucky and disturbing experience, albeit a necessary one IMO. There is something to be said, however, for those who, at their time in history, blast the residing establishment and powers that be. I think it's a healthy reaction of thinking beings to the stifling of intellectual activity that occurs in society whenever a sect achieves dominance. Balance.

Michael Moore certainly has his agenda, and although I don't like it, I appreciate how he stirs the waters. The artistic license he may employ with actual events is not what's important; the stirring of the mind is what truly is.

[Lazarus]

Interesting! There is a very definite concordance of opinion on Moore (at least here in SYM):

Silur: “I don't like the man, but by being one of the few disconcordant voices in the US media I still view him as critical for the survival of the US democracy.”

Sojourner: “I think the negative reaction is due in part to the fact he's holding up the mirror, and people aren't liking what they're seeing”

Xandax: “But that dosen't mean I simply write off what he says - many things he states are thought provoking…This is *always* neasecary and important in democracies (and societies in general in my oppinion), otherwise we slip closer to totalitarian goverments where people *has* to agree with the people in power.”

Chanak: “I suppose I see value in Moore's films simply from the view that any creative work, such as a film or book, that causes you to think and reflect on the issues it raises, is a good thing.” And, later: “Michael Moore certainly has his agenda, and although I don't like it, I appreciate how he stirs the waters. The artistic license he may employ with actual events is not what's important; the stirring of the mind is what truly is.”

Nightmare: “Yes, he sensationalizes most of his work and its not really objective. But, his merit is in the fact that whenever he asks questions, the answers are usually hesistant and uncomfortable.”

So, it appears that people believe the value of Moore springs mostly from the fact that he is a voice of opposition. Someone who is willing to ask the tough questions, point out the problems, attack the powers that be …

I guess I see limited value – perhaps even negative value, I’m not certain – in someone who asks the tough questions, and then answers them with lies and obfuscations. (I note that no one here has denied my assertion that Moore lies.)

@Xandax: you say Moore (and all those who speak out) stand between democracy and totalitarianism. Really? A man who falsifies and polarizes is the man who will save us from totalitarianism? I disagree. And I have to believe that those who are so disgusted with Bush would disagree also – as they continually accuse Bush of exactly what Moore does.

@Chanak: “Artistic license?” Since when have lies fallen under the umbrella of “artistic license?” Moore portrays himself as producing “documentaries.” I think he owes us more that “artistic license.”

@Silur: you say you have now seen the Columbine movie, and say: “In difference to most of his opponents, however, he gets his statistics right.” Really? Did you take a look through the Bowling for Truth site? They have rather a different view. I think this page is a good example of what Moore does with statistics. Out of curiosity, why do you think Moore gets his numbers right?

I am a big supporter of opposition to the status quo and the powers that be. My views are, in many respects, far more radical that Moore’s. So I hope you understand me when I say: I find no evil whatsoever in speaking your mind and expressing your vision – that is necessary and positive in a free society. But I do find evil in lies. I do find evil in “film-making” that portrays Iraq before the war as some idyllic land of Eden, or twists numbers so far from reality that they lose all meaning. And that is what I believe Moore is all about.

[Kayless]

Roger Ebert wrote this about Michael Moore recently, and I thought it revelvent.
[QUOTE=Roger Ebert]The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity (Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it), but accuracy. We expect him to hold an opinion and argue it, but we also require his facts to be correct. I was an admirer of his previous doc, the Oscar-winning "Bowling for Columbine," until I discovered that some of his "facts" were wrong, false or fudged.

In some cases, he was guilty of making a good story better, but in other cases (such as his ambush of Charlton Heston) he was unfair, and in still others (such as the wording on the plaque under the bomber at the Air Force Academy) he was just plain wrong, as anyone can see by going to look at the plaque.

Because I agree with Moore's politics, his inaccuracies pained me, and I wrote about them in my Answer Man column. Moore wrote me that he didn't expect such attacks "from you, of all people." But I cannot ignore flaws simply because I agree with the filmmaker. In hurting his cause, he wounds mine.[/QUOTE]

[Aegis]

[QUOTE=Lazarus]I guess I see limited value – perhaps even negative value, I’m not certain – in someone who asks the tough questions, and then answers them with lies and obfuscations. (I note that no one here has denied my assertion that Moore lies.)
[/QUOTE]
I'm not quite sure, but this particular statement leads me to believe you don't think that the tough questions should be asked, or that, if they aren't answered, we shouldn't draw certain conclusions? Stepping aside from Moore, for the moment, if it were you asking these same questions, and received hesitant, if no, answers, would it not lead you to surmise a logical reason on your own, perhaps one that fits your cause?

While it is evidently agreed upon that not all of Moore's facts are legit, it can at least be said that he is doing something that many Americans are not, and that's challenging the powers that be, attempting to make them accountable for their decisions. I see nothing wrong in that. Seeing as how his inaccuracies have sparked discussion, both on these forums, and in the media, then he is doing what he set out to do, and that's to make people ask the questions themselves, and seek their own answers. Inadvertantly, he's ended up hurting his own reputation, but in the process, he's slowly backing people of power into a corner, where they will eventually have to be accountable for what they've done.

[Silur]

@Lazarus:

To comment on your link first. The number of people killed by firearms is roughly correct according to the US department of health that puts the number of gun-related deaths excluding suicides and accidents at 12077 in 2000. Comparisons between countries are based on the number of people killed by firearms in the respective countries, not the number of homicides. If you check with the film, you will notice that Moore consistently talks about people killed by guns, not homicides. The page your link points to is doing far worse numerical acrobatics than does Moore, since they compare an entirely different set of statistics claiming them to be the same.

I do not much appreciate your attempt to interpret my statements in a way that suits your argument. I do not only like Moore for being one of the few that oppose the powers that be. I also respect him for doing a very good job of presenting very complex subjects to the general public. It is much harder to present the facts than it is to push the propaganda, and especially to a largely uninterested audience. This becomes quite obvious when one studies the links you have presented. When validating data, it is just as bad (or as in this case even worse) trusting the opponents of a statement as it is to trust the original source. It is also interesting to see the rethorics to discredit the correct data with irrelevant sidetracks, strawmen or circular arguments.

While checking the data from your latest links, I came across Michael Moore's own comments on the criticism. It is quite interesting to read, and he is much better at giving references to his claims. The retort at the site you presented should try to get the spelling for Ad Hominem right, since they use it often enough themselves.

[Xandax]

[QUOTE=Lazarus]<snip>
Xandax: “But that dosen't mean I simply write off what he says - many things he states are thought provoking…This is *always* neasecary and important in democracies (and societies in general in my oppinion), otherwise we slip closer to totalitarian goverments where people *has* to agree with the people in power.”
<snip>
@Xandax: you say Moore (and all those who speak out) stand between democracy and totalitarianism. Really? A man who falsifies and polarizes is the man who will save us from totalitarianism? I disagree. And I have to believe that those who are so disgusted with Bush would disagree also – as they continually accuse Bush of exactly what Moore does.
<snip>[/QUOTE]

In the snip you took from my post - I say that people presenting the thought provoking questions is necessary in a democracy, and this isn't the equvivalent of "a man who falsifies and polarizes" is neasecary.
And furthermore - if all the information the public get presented with, is the "lies and falsifications" of the Government or "powers in control", then even the “liar” can pose the though questions. The only reason there is so much controversies about MM, is not that he is caught “lying” on some of his facts – many (unfortunally) do this – it is because he dose it while posing questions and statements that some certain people/organisations/corporations doesn’t want asked. If it was only because he lied, then a simple and easy show of counter-facts could disproof it, and then end of story …. but that is not how the situation is surrounding MM..

I don't doubt that MM lies on some of his facts, but if you use the sites you linked to, as factual to disprove his lies, well ... then I question objectivity. Those sites only purpose is to go after the man, and not the "lies", they are so biased they make MM look neutral.

Just glancing over the sites, I noticed several "oversimplifications".
One of the sites linked in the original post, took every word literal from the short satiric cartoon in BFC, and because it literally didn't match history, then it was all discarded.
One of these “oversimplifications”, were that there is still Native Americans figuring in census, so they weren’t destroyed as a people by the “newcomers”, as MM postulated.
And the pilgrims wasn’t persecuted by a few people riding up to them on horses, wearing wigs – so the fact that the pilgrims fled to avoid a persecuting society was also wrong.

There were many others examples on those sites, but I will not pull all of them out, because it will serve nothing, and I'm sure most that read such material with an open mind, can see them just as easy as I did.

edit: @Silur: Intersting link.

edit x2: (one) typo which would cause misunderstanding corrected

[Chanak]

@Laz: I think Xandax summed it up well for me. I take Moore with a grain of salt...I am aware of his record. I don't buy most of what he spews. However, I also don't buy most of what the powers that be spew, either. That someone has the gall to question their veracity publically, in a way they couldn't prevent, has value to me. Who is "they" to me? Well, I don't see partisanship the way it is presented to the American public. I also don't perceive President Bush as a great evil to either our country, nor to the world. Rather, I perceive Washington and the Federal Government as a great evil to our country, the American spirit, and freedom itself. That's "they" to me. Republican or Democrat, I see little difference between the two. The Republicans may appeal to my conservative sensibilities, which they then dash to pieces by their domestic policies, actions in Congress, contributions to the growth of the Federal Government, foreign policies (Reaganesque they are not), and pandering to religious special interest groups and the corporate elite. On the other hand, the Democratic party may appeal to my liberal social conscious, which they then ruin by their flakiness, inconsistencies, flawed attempts at social engineering, overall immaturity and anti-American sentiments. I also particularly don't care for the socialism many secretly espouse. Both political parties have proven neither has any intention of shrinking the massive beast that is the Federal Government...instead, they have proven to me over the years that they are only interested in remaining in power.

Michael Moore or Rush Limbaugh, there is value in opposition. One might be more truthful than the other in their representation of facts, yet despite this, Limbaugh faithfully toes the Republican party line, which caused me to lose respect for him years ago. There are as many holes in the hull of the Republican ship as there are in the Democratic ship.

My ideas are rather radical. I realize it might be a pipe dream, but one day I hope America can be America again, and regain what was lost.

[Lazarus]

Aegis: “I'm not quite sure, but this particular statement leads me to believe you don't think that the tough questions should be asked, or that, if they aren't answered, we shouldn't draw certain conclusions?”

Well, what I’m saying is certainly not that tough questions should not be asked, but rather they should be asked and answered honestly. I don’t feel that Moore succeeds in the “honestly” part of his asking or answering.

Silur: ”To comment on your link first. The number of people killed by firearms is roughly correct according to the US department of health that puts the number of gun-related deaths excluding suicides and accidents at 12077 in 2000. Comparisons between countries are based on the number of people killed by firearms in the respective countries, not the number of homicides. If you check with the film, you will notice that Moore consistently talks about people killed by guns, not homicides. The page your link points to is doing far worse numerical acrobatics than does Moore, since they compare an entirely different set of statistics claiming them to be the same.”

Actually, the page I link to discusses both gun-related incidents and homicides (by any means), and does in no way claim them to be the same. It goes to great length, actually, to discuss that point in the concluding paragraphs. Moore has portrayed a culture of guns equivalent with a culture of violence, but the facts contradict that, as the site I link to points out.

And that, IMO, is really why I am an opponent of Moore: because he will twist things (truth, reality, peoples words, numbers, images) in such a way to influence his audience. He doesn’t (IMO) do it to make them think (you can’t “make” anyone think – and certainly not by playing around with images and emotions the way he does), nor raise awareness. He does it to propagandize his view in what I feel to be a dishonest manner.

”I do not much appreciate your attempt to interpret my statements in a way that suits your argument. I do not only like Moore for being one of the few that oppose the powers that be. I also respect him for doing a very good job of presenting very complex subjects to the general public. It is much harder to present the facts than it is to push the propaganda, and especially to a largely uninterested audience. This becomes quite obvious when one studies the links you have presented. When validating data, it is just as bad (or as in this case even worse) trusting the opponents of a statement as it is to trust the original source. It is also interesting to see the rethorics to discredit the correct data with irrelevant sidetracks, strawmen or circular arguments.”

I do not know how I may have misinterpreted your statements to suit my argument. I felt the quote I took from your post was quite clear. Indeed, what I quote directly above seems to indicate not that you disagree with my interpretation (“I do not only like Moore for being one of the few that oppose the powers that be”), but only that you wished to add another clause to that (“I also respect him for doing a very good job of presenting very complex subjects to the general public”). OK. So how have I misinterpreted your statement to suit my argument? People believe Moore serves a purpose as a voice of opposition. That was my argument. Your statements certainly seem to support it.

”While checking the data from your latest links, I came across Michael Moore's own comments on the criticism. It is quite interesting to read, and he is much better at giving references to his claims. The retort at the site you presented should try to get the spelling for Ad Hominem right, since they use it often enough themselves.”

The link you provide is quite interesting, but Moore only addresses a few of the points raised by his opponents, and is, IMO, a bit dishonest on at least one of the points he is refuting (the Heston speech – which he edits in such a devious fashion, but on the wacko-attacko site he stands by his work as being honest).

The point is, IMHO, that Moore is able to make these outrageous movies, and he is praised for it because – just like everyone here says – he is somehow perceived as going against the system. My point (again) is that that is all fine and dandy, but why do we feel it positive to have an opposition that is so full of lies, obfuscations, and misdirections? Silur, you are an opposing voice to the US (though in Scandinavia), and far more worthy than Moore. I am an opposing voice. Chanak is an opposing voice. There are so many much more worthy voices out there! And yet we put Moore at the top of the charts (his movie is #1 right now). I don’t understand that, and I really do feel it somewhat of a dangerous trend.

And as for spelling errors – don’t go there, Mr. Rethoric.

@Xandax: ” In the snip you took from my post - I say that people presenting the thought provoking questions is necessary in a democracy, and this isn't the equvivalent of "a man who falsifies and polarizes" is neasecary.”

Of course. Of course. And no argument from me on that point. But my assertion is that Michael Moore is a man who falsifies and polarizes, and therefore is of limited (or negative) value to society at large.

You don’t want to go through the sites point by point, and I have no intention of defending them point by point. Frankly, I never even looked very deeply into these sites prior to linking to them (as I said in my first post). My knowledge of Moore comes from rather more disparate sources, but I thought that these links would get across my point (though, at this point, I’m rather thinking their inclusion was a tactical error. )

Again, however, I can’t help but feel that no one has really denied that Moore lies. I guess I just feel that it is an odd thing when people say: “well, yeah, he lies, but so does everybody else – and at least he is a voice of opposition.” Can’t we aim a little higher? I think you would all agree that America needs some kind of change – do we really want to dumb ourselves down to the level of Moore just to achieve that change? ‘Cos I don’t think it works that way. I think once you start legitimizing Moore, you don’t see people becoming more aware, you see them simply becoming Rush Limbaughs of the left. And you won’t see change – just more politics as usual. Ah, well.

@Chanak: Well, I guess I agree with what you say in your latest post, but I don’t know that it answered by point: I can’t view Moore as simply taking “artistic license” when I see the things he does.

I’m off. The work week is starting. I’ll check back in later. In the meantime, I’d really like to hear from more people who have seen the film …

[Silur]

[QUOTE=Lazarus]Well, what I’m saying is certainly not that tough questions should not be asked, but rather they should be asked and answered honestly. I don’t feel that Moore succeeds in the “honestly” part of his asking or answering.
[/QUOTE]

Well, if that is true, then perhaps instead of nitpicking on how Michael Moore presents his statistics, maybe you should look around more. The US school system (among others; not bashing the US specifically) pushes so many lies it's bordering on brainwash, religious fanatics are successfully pushing their "creation" story with a complete lack of respect for truth and logic, your government is still clinging to the lies that brought about the war in Iraq and Reagan is praised as a hero even though he wrecked the US economy worse than anyone (except Bush) and was responsible for thousands of murders on innocent people in Nicaragua. Can you show me one newspaper or TV station that lives up to you "honesty"-criteria?



[QUOTE=Lazarus]
Actually, the page I link to discusses both gun-related incidents and homicides (by any means), and does in no way claim them to be the same. It goes to great length, actually, to discuss that point in the concluding paragraphs. Moore has portrayed a culture of guns equivalent with a culture of violence, but the facts contradict that, as the site I link to points out.
[/QUOTE]

What on earth are you talking about? This is exactly the kind of strawmen I'm talking about. Michael Moore's statement in the film is not that gun culture is equivalent of violent culture. I'm starting to wonder if you have actually seen the film in question, since Moore "at great length" discusses the fact that Canada has more than twice as many guns per capita as do the US population and that the existence of a great many guns does not explain the phenomenon.



[QUOTE=Lazarus]
And that, IMO, is really why I am an opponent of Moore: because he will twist things (truth, reality, peoples words, numbers, images) in such a way to influence his audience. He doesn’t (IMO) do it to make them think (you can’t “make” anyone think – and certainly not by playing around with images and emotions the way he does), nor raise awareness. He does it to propagandize his view in what I feel to be a dishonest manner.
[/QUOTE]

If you truly despise this kind of methods, have a look around you. They are everywhere. It is interesting to note that the only one you single out in the general propaganda stream is the person with the opposing view. I have never seen you critizise anyone else in these terms, although arguably George W Bush is a much greater liar, Donald Rumsfeld yet a few more steps up the ladder, Tony Blair has been renamed Tony B Liar by the British, to mention but a few. When you present a similar argument in for instance the case on how the US government cajole their way out of the Kyoto agreement, or have a look at the motives for being one of the very few nations not to ban the use of land mines, then I will maybe believe that you are not just pushing the general Conservative agenda.



[QUOTE=Lazarus]
I do not know how I may have misinterpreted your statements to suit my argument. I felt the quote I took from your post was quite clear. Indeed, what I quote directly above seems to indicate not that you disagree with my interpretation (“I do not only like Moore for being one of the few that oppose the powers that be”), but only that you wished to add another clause to that (“I also respect him for doing a very good job of presenting very complex subjects to the general public”). OK. So how have I misinterpreted your statement to suit my argument? People believe Moore serves a purpose as a voice of opposition. That was my argument. Your statements certainly seem to support it.
[/QUOTE]

So far so good, but what I opposed was your extending of that interpretation with "springs mostly", which is a very rethorical way of directing and marginalizing a statement. I prefer my statements stand on their own.



[QUOTE=Lazarus]
The link you provide is quite interesting, but Moore only addresses a few of the points raised by his opponents, and is, IMO, a bit dishonest on at least one of the points he is refuting (the Heston speech – which he edits in such a devious fashion, but on the wacko-attacko site he stands by his work as being honest).
[/QUOTE]

Speaking of liars and manipulators, Charlton Heston does not hesitate for a second to be dishonest in his rhethoric. I'd say he deserves everything he gets from Moore and worse. Still, what Moore did with Hestons speech is within his right, just as you are within your right to quote me as we discussed earlier. I may not like it, but I'm not calling you dishonest for doing so. You do however put limits on Moore's behaviour that you do not place on his opponents; the NeoCons and their brethren can be as biased and deceiving as they like because that is to be expected, but from Moore you demand that he be unbiased and present both sides of the case equally.

Before you answer that, let be save you from the trouble of dragging the word documentary into the discussion. I know that many people claim and believe that documentaries are supposed to be the objective truth on a subject (extremely dangerous sentiment), and that Moore is somehow breaking the rules with his movies. There has never been and will never be a documentary made based entirely on fact, and especially not one in the field of politics. If you look at the films made after WWII in the US they are so full of propaganda it's apalling, yet at the time they were called documentaries and some still are. You still believe the nuclear attack on Nagasaki was necessary to end the war, don't you? Personally I think those responsible should have been up there with the SS high command at the Nurnberg trials...



[QUOTE=Lazarus]
The point is, IMHO, that Moore is able to make these outrageous movies, and he is praised for it because – just like everyone here says – he is somehow perceived as going against the system. My point (again) is that that is all fine and dandy, but why do we feel it positive to have an opposition that is so full of lies, obfuscations, and misdirections?
[/QUOTE]

Since I have already disqualified most of the information on the hate-sites you directed me to, you still need to substantiate your claims more clearly. Sure he uses the data that most clearly shows the message he wants to portray, but I have not yet seen that he has fabricated evidence of his claims - in difference, I might add, to "the powers that be" that you so graciously let slide in your pursuit of truth. To me, it sounds like you prefer nitpicking the details to avoid having to deal with the real subject, but that is just my analysis.



[QUOTE=Lazarus]
Silur, you are an opposing voice to the US (though in Scandinavia)
[/QUOTE]

Yes, I know. It's pointless really, since to most Americans we're all pinko to dark red communists over here, so there is no need to listen to what we say. All communists are wrong by default.



[QUOTE=Lazarus]
, and far more worthy than Moore. I am an opposing voice. Chanak is an opposing voice. There are so many much more worthy voices out there! And yet we put Moore at the top of the charts (his movie is #1 right now). I don’t understand that, and I really do feel it somewhat of a dangerous trend.
[/QUOTE]



What most of us lack is, in no particular order, a production company, money, time and dedication, money, contacts, a film crew, money, etc. Moore is using a media he has at his disposal to push his views, and he has to make the message clear and understandable to as many people as possible - and especially the nitwits. The general audience in the US wouldn't watch for five seconds if Moore presented them with statistical charts, numbers, interviews with sociologists, psychologists, criminologists, and so on. To reach the majority of his audience, he has to make his case as spectacular as "americas most wanted", otherwise everyone would watch the later instead. Indeed, you should credit the man for not taking wider turns with the truth considering what he has to work with. Since you started this thread I have read much more about him and his views, and I must say that my respect for the man has gone up immensely.



[QUOTE=Lazarus]
And as for spelling errors – don’t go there, Mr. Rethoric.
[/QUOTE]

I think it is a bit different to publish an article with severe spelling errors than it is to post on a message board. The first makes you look like a moron, the second is generally accepted as a mistake. It is not as if I am attacking your spelling (unless of course you wrote the article).



[QUOTE=Lazarus]
Of course. Of course. And no argument from me on that point. But my assertion is that Michael Moore is a man who falsifies and polarizes, and therefore is of limited (or negative) value to society at large.
[/QUOTE]

Please expand on why it would have a negative value? How would it be better if Michael Moore were silent? So far all you have done is to state and restate that he's a liar without presenting anything to substantiate that, and drawing from this that Moore is of limited value to society without substantiating that either. What you are saying is largely a circular argument; Moore is evil, therefore he's evil.

...to be continued

[Silur]

The saga continues....


[QUOTE=Lazarus]
You don’t want to go through the sites point by point, and I have no intention of defending them point by point. Frankly, I never even looked very deeply into these sites prior to linking to them (as I said in my first post). My knowledge of Moore comes from rather more disparate sources, but I thought that these links would get across my point (though, at this point, I’m rather thinking their inclusion was a tactical error. )
[/QUOTE]

I agree, although linking to reliable sources such as NIH or statistical agencies across the world would pretty much have defeated your purpose. I suggest you do try to defend them point by point, because how else will you be able to discern if indeed Michael Moore is the liar or those calling him one.



[QUOTE=Lazarus]
Again, however, I can’t help but feel that no one has really denied that Moore lies. I guess I just feel that it is an odd thing when people say: “well, yeah, he lies, but so does everybody else – and at least he is a voice of opposition.” Can’t we aim a little higher? I think you would all agree that America needs some kind of change – do we really want to dumb ourselves down to the level of Moore just to achieve that change? ‘Cos I don’t think it works that way. I think once you start legitimizing Moore, you don’t see people becoming more aware, you see them simply becoming Rush Limbaughs of the left. And you won’t see change – just more politics as usual. Ah, well.
[/QUOTE]

Since I'm not a religious man, I do not believe in saints. Michael Moore may be the Rush Limbaugh of the humanitarian view, but they both have to be that way to get their points across through the constant media static of the US. They are also a product of the polarised society they stem from, where everything has to be either black or white to be interesting enough to be shown on TV. I still say you hold the sides to different standards, and I'm not just talking about Rush Limbaugh who seems to love being the right extremist bad boy, but all those that have opposing views to Michael Moore. To quote just one of these master of rhethorics, "there you go again".

[Silur]

I have now seen the movie, and I must say I was positively surprised. It was free from most of the normal Michael Moore hysteria that I find so tiresome. In fact, the only hysteria in the film comes from the US families bereft of their sons and the Iraqi civilians that suffered from the invasion, and I think they have every right to be upset.

MM very much builds the story by letting the footage speak for itself. Granted, he has a rather easy target, since Shrub is not often seen without at least one of his feet in his mouth. It is at times needlessly melodramatic and emotional, but still not in a constructed way as some of the sequences in Columbine. It is a film worth seeing - not necessarily at the cinema since it really doesn't use either the extraordinary sound system or the large screen - but it tells a story, and the factual content is convincing enough. So to see what the critics say, I had a look at the article provided by Lazarus:

Slate[/URL] article, by Christopher Hitchens, dealing with the new movie. It’s a lengthy article, but only because it takes so long to list all of the errors, contradictions, and obfuscations in the film.

This article is in my view not so long because it points at the numerous falseties in the film, but because it tries to miscredit Moore to the point where the mentioned falsities "can't be true since Moore is a despicable person". The article is more about Michael Moore than it is about the film, and to take just one quote from the article that I found set the tune splendidly: "However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that "fact-checking" is beside the point.". It also uses a number of smaller falsities to prove that since these things are false, so must all the rest. Both these fall under classical logical fallacies. It also asks a number of questions that are in themselves interesting (such as why the Saudis didn't join the coalition, etc) but they are not relevant for the validity of MM's claims - yet another fallacy. I believe there are a great number of errors, omissions and falsities in the film, but that is largely irrelevant. By trying to put focus on the erroneous details, critics are hoping that the general statement of the film will go unnoticed - that the current US government played on the fears of the US people to further themselves and their friends financially.

My suggestion is: 1. See the film if it interests you. 2. When you have, read the article presented above. 3. Think carefully. 4. Decide for yourself what you wish to believe given the available information.

[RandomThug]

Wiether they are a bomb thrower from the right or a bomb thrower from the left they are non the less an agenda run person. These agenda's drag us farther from any real truth in government, they propose idea's (Bush is allied with Binladen) (Gore is a hippie idiot) that are false but they fightfor them to be true. People say "His movies wont change opinions" I say bullcrap. I listen to these radio hosts on Foxradionews and these guys day in and day out spill out Right wing bombs, claiming to be nuetral. These are the guys who provide news to an older generation of Americans who listen, watch and read their spiel as truth.

We have gotten so far from each other... left to right.... so far that to even comment against is to be either nazi or treasonist. With this giant gap people like Moore come off as fighting for a good cause, Moore is doing what every American is doing. Making a living... he has a good niche.. he falsefies some truths, makes them humourus and interesting and sells them for a high price.

There are few people to listen to anymore, most likely you'll find them in sports news casters or comedians... people who have little to no investment in profitablity from politics. Because its all screwed.

Moore is a liar as bush is a liar. It can be debated... all that matters is a percentage of people who didn't like bush but dont like kerry, those who see this movie will most likely not check the facts just like those who listen and watch fox... and will vote because of which.

This country is truely being run by businesses.

[RandomThug]

I heard a good bit of info the other day.

Imagine you run a country... building within your country day in and day out stronger and stronger is a religious revolution of great proportions. A revolution that wants to dismantle your control and set up an idiological group of people to run themselves... Do you want to fuel these people...

Sure come countries claim to be our friends and then they dont oust all the terrorists in their country. As much as An eygptian politician feels for an american child dying, they really dont compare it to an egyptian child dying... and ditto reversed.

[Silur]

[QUOTE=RandomThug]Wiether they are a bomb thrower from the right or a bomb thrower from the left they are non the less an agenda run person. These agenda's drag us farther from any real truth in government, they propose idea's (Bush is allied with Binladen) (Gore is a hippie idiot) that are false but they fightfor them to be true. People say "His movies wont change opinions" I say bullcrap. I listen to these radio hosts on Foxradionews and these guys day in and day out spill out Right wing bombs, claiming to be nuetral. These are the guys who provide news to an older generation of Americans who listen, watch and read their spiel as truth.
[/QUOTE]

I really hate this "left" and "right" polarisation BS. It really doesn't serve much of a purpose in US politics, since both Republicans and Democrats are extreme rightwing parties as compared to almost everything else in the world. There are so many things that don't fit into this highly simplified view of the world, and Michael Moore is one of them. He is quite obviously a different kind of nutcase, neither left nor right, but with an agenda that is uncomfortable to a lot of people. Maybe he just likes being unpleasant? Maybe he has higher ideals? Maybe he's just the jester that aims to throw you of the track? Who knows, but by boxing up people into just two categories, you yourself are in fact making the situation worse. Not only that, but it's an acceptance of the current situation in the US, where one rich democrat guy sometimes replaces a rich republican guy in running the country. So lighten up, go out in the world and try to make at least one new category before the end of the week!



[quote="RandomThug]
This country is truely being run by businesses.
[/QUOTE"]

It's called capitalism. It's based on the circulation of capital. To solidify capital into long term wealth, you construct a concept of businesses or companies. Some people seem to like having their lives run by these kind of conceptual entities.

[Silur]

[QUOTE=RandomThug]I heard a good bit of info the other day.[/QUOTE]

I'm terribly sorry, but I didn't understand this post at all. Could you elaborate?

[RandomThug]

First off Somewhere in this thread (at work cant really re read it) someone makes a comment about why the saudi's dont help us and I just thought the point I heard was relevant.

Basically a country will do whats best for itself in any circumstance, for its people before others. If you were in thier shoe's you'd question your actions before just jumping with America... its not just a question of Are they against us but whats thier benifit/loss of joining our little army in the middle east.

Secondly I know what Capitalism is but our country was not founded on such or at least the underlyning idea is that Democracy runs this land. Perhaps I should get a little more detailed and say "So few big businesses" now run the states it is impossible to have debate...


And thirdly your comment about both the democrats and the republicans being so far right in comparison to the rest of the world... are you to tell me the rest of the world is more liberal? The entire rest of the world... please be more specific when generalizing against America.

I agree the levels of "left,right" we have gotten too (like I said in my previous post) are so far out there that thier is no longer room for logical debate, just bomb throwing. You need to have debates, to have people who dont agree to question each other... you need a balance... right now we got 2 hundred tons on both end of the see saw.. its not going anywhere.

Excuse me for a second but I take offense to your post as well... perhaps mis judged but well... let me explain.


To say that people are left and people are right is not disregarding all who fall inbetween, I was speaking about those bomb throwing media folks... why you feel the need to ask me to create another catagory I ask you to follow my post without trailing off in some rant about another thing thats wrong with America.

MM is just a left wing bomb thrower... He has an agenda and thats to make money first, after that its your guess... but his movies favor those who run with the democrats...

[Silur]

[QUOTE=RandomThug]
Basically a country will do whats best for itself in any circumstance, for its people before others. If you were in thier shoe's you'd question your actions before just jumping with America... its not just a question of Are they against us but whats thier benifit/loss of joining our little army in the middle east.
[/quote]

I see what you mean. Yes, to me it is quite obvious that the Saudis don't mind Saddam getting bombed to bits, but it is much better for them if someone else does it. Also, it is very bad for their image to be directly connected to the US, so they would rather stay clear when the bombs fall. After all, they are home to the city of Mecca, and you wouldn't want to upset any other Muslim country, would you?


[QUOTE=RandomThug]
Secondly I know what Capitalism is but our country was not founded on such or at least the underlyning idea is that Democracy runs this land. Perhaps I should get a little more detailed and say "So few big businesses" now run the states it is impossible to have debate...
[/QUOTE]

It was a bit of a joke, sorry. I'm still playing at being a pinko commie.


[QUOTE=RandomThug]
And thirdly your comment about both the democrats and the republicans being so far right in comparison to the rest of the world... are you to tell me the rest of the world is more liberal? The entire rest of the world... please be more specific when generalizing against America.
[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely right. It shouldn't say "everything", so I have corrected it into "almost everything". But I'm not saying the rest of the world is more liberal in your sense of the word. Left and right is a scale where you find the communists on the extreme left and the fascists at the extreme right. Liberal to me is in the middle... Most modern politics fall in between the extremes. The single largest party "type" in Europe is the "Social democrat"-kind of party. It is quite a bit left of the US Democrats and to the left of the term "liberal". The British Tories are about as right you can get while still in mainstream politics, and they are also left of the Democrats in the traditional sense. Since parties are largely irrelevant if there is no democracy, all dictatorships get disqualified. That leaves a few fascist and neo-nazi followers here and there, and perhaps some radical party somewhere that I don't know about. Other than that, looking at the effective politics of both US parties, they are pretty close on the same right side of the scale.


[QUOTE=RandomThug]
Excuse me for a second but I take offense to your post as well... perhaps mis judged but well... let me explain.
<snip>
MM is just a left wing bomb thrower... He has an agenda and thats to make money first, after that its your guess... but his movies favor those who run with the democrats...[/QUOTE]

I'm sorry if you take offense, there was none intended. I do, however, not agree that Michael Moore is a left wing anything. I am also saying that by putting him in a box that says "left" is just making the problem worse. If all things in the world of politics get defined as being either left or right by a person, then that person is likely to value them based on their left-ness or right-ness rather than on their actual value. After a while you will have the people placed in the boxes acting according to the "box" expectancy, ie I am a democrat so I can't lower taxes, or I am a Republican so I have to increase military spending... See what I mean?

I thought everyone was going with Kerry just to get Bush out of office. I didn't think it had anything to do with him being a Democrat. It's too bad there aren't any good options around... I can't stand Kerry either. I am, however, drifting far of subject. In any case, the intent of my post was not intended to bash the US, but to point at the problem with the polarisation of just putting two labels on things.

[RandomThug]

I've calmed down, I tend to start these things off with an attitude.

Your right to a degree... I, being american, have to label things. I agree with labeling MM as left wing creates an expectation... the whole "cant lower taxes" democrat thing you mentioned. BUT I do not think it is the existance of such left/right generalizations that have caused this expectancy but rather the polarization of our nation since the clinton administration. With the mass media today spitting out news 24/7 and a lot of it conservative, with both parties looking very conservative in some ways (not all, there are democrats and republicans who are conservative/liberal in thier own ways not everyone is a gore or bush). It is the media coupled with the morality of ideals... for instance the idea of fighting for america to defend its people is honorable there for if your against us fighting to defend ourselves in iraq your not honorable... its the crap like that recent fcc bill that passed 99 to 1 (something like the fcc can fine radio hosts 3 mill a day or soemthing) it was piggy backed with a military spending bill... which means if you voted against it , it would go down on your record as you are anti war.... its crap like that its perception its... man I am to tired to continue.


Your right the more we label the harder it is to find a middle... so I'll agree MM isn't a leftist bomb thrower. MM is a capitalist who knows what is going to sell right now.... and thats his version of the truth.