M-13 - Michael Moore

[x Natalie x]

The subject probably give you a good idea of what this thread is about...

Michael Moore.

For those that do not know who he is, he is the author of such books called "Stupid White Men: And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation", and "Dude, Where's my Country?". Also the mastermind (in my opinion) behind "Roger and Me" and "Bowling for Columbine"

I have only seen "Bowling for Columbine", so I don't know everything about him, but I am getting "Stupid White Men: And Other Sorry Excuses for the State of the Nation", and "Dude, Where's my Country?" tonight.

I really liked "Bowling for Columbine", I had the privledge of watching it twice this year. I think he has an amazing way of getting his point across, a slightly sarcastic-direct way, but amazing none-the-less.

What do you all think of him?

This thread will probably last about a full two days, but meh, it was worth a try.

[MadMagic]

I think Michael Moore is a good entertainer. I found both 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Roger and Me' to be quite entertaining. I wouldn't take anything he says too seriously though. He definately has then tendency to be quite biased and make things out to be what he wants them to be.

Anyway, you might find this (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=8676&highlight=michael+moore) to be interesting, as it discusses 'Bowling for Columbine' a bit :)

[Auror Williamson]

I remember there being an extremely intense thread in Knockturn Alley about Mikey in July...

[Hagrid442]

He might have some good points from time to time, but he's not exactly someone that tries to be totally accurate. His little quip at the Oscar's last year was sophomoric. Even if I agreed with the sentiments, it wasn't the place or time to make a partisan remark.

[HollywoodBob]

Michael Moore creates what I would call anti-propoganda. He admits to using creative methods to prove his point, but nothing in his films is staged or false.

As for his statements at the Oscars, most of Hollywood was upset with the action of the US government, but Mike was the only one with the balls to say anything. And as for it being the wrong place and the wrong time for such a statement, awards ceremonies have always been used as a forum for people to use their exceptance speach as a soapbox.

If anyone would like to learn a little more about Michael Moore's views, you should check out www.michaelmoore.com

You should be sure to read the letters he's posted from US military troops.

-HollywoodBob

[rotsiepots]

I remember there being an extremely intense thread in Knockturn Alley about Mikey in July...

I was just thinking the same thing. :)

Anyway, I'll just say here what I said then. I think everything Michael Moore says has to be taken with a grain of salt. He does have some very valid points sometimes, but occasionally he is rather "over the top" with his ideas. Like Weatherby said, he's more of a political entertainer than anything else.

I do enjoy his commentary, though.

[DrummerboyDT]

I don't really agree with Michael Moore on a lot of issues, but I like the fact that he honestly speaks his mind through film and books by using sarcasm, comedy, and reality.

[Wab]

Mike Moore does what a lot of so-called professional reporters (yes White House corps I'm looking at you) should but don't do.

He won't take spin or rhetoric for an answer but keeps hammering away.

[tizzy weasley]

I personally like Micheal Moore. I like how he really puts the issues out there. I like his views on certain things ie. gun control. I've only been able to see Bowling for Columbine, but already its changed my views on things.

[PhoenixUK]

I know it's kind of late, but could we have some questions?

1. Has any of Moore's work changed your opinion on issues such as gun control or Bush's "dubious" election victory?

2. It was revealed that some of the scenes in Bowling for Columbine were faked. Do you trust Moore, nevertheless?

3. Did you support the stance Michael Moore made at the Oscars, or was it over-indulgent?

4. Honestly... is he doing it for the money, or because he likes the issues being exposed?

5a) As an American, do you feel that a fellow American attacking your country so openly is a good thing? -or-

5b) If you are non-American, have your views on America been changed by Michael Moore?

6. If everyone was like Michael Moore, and didn't believe everything the government told them, would the world be a better place?

7. Go on... on a huggabulity scale of 1 -> 10, 1 being unhuggable, 10 being Teddy Bear status, where do you rate Moore? And, would you hug him? (yes, it's another deep Knockturn Alley debate question, I see :D.

[Mad-I Moody]

I wanted to respond to PhoenixUK's questions, but, as I'm pressed for time at the moment, I would like to venture a response for question 5a only.

5a) As an American, do you feel that a fellow American attacking your country so openly is a good thing?

First of all, I don't believe that Moore ever "attacks" America. I personally think he's probably very grateful to be living in a country that allows him to have his own voice on every issue under the sun. As an American, people like Michael Moore make me just as proud as the men and women who choose to join the armed forces, because that is what democracy is about. we are all free to make our own decisions, and are free to voice our opinions. Michael Moore's outspokenness is part of what makes this country a great one to live in. There are things wrong in America, seriously wrong, and if everyone was content to ignore these things and just sit idly by screaming "America is the greatest country in the WORLD!" then I believe that those people would be in violation of their duties as a citizen of the U.S. We are asked to question our leaders. That is why we have a government created on checks and balances. The people are called to question those issues which, to them, seem horribly wrong. That is what America is about, and Michael Moore is, to me, an icon of America for that reason.

I hope I didn't get anyone's dander up. :D

Oh, and I think Micheal Moore is a brilliant documentarian as well. A very smart filmmaker, IMHO.

[thethirdman]

I know it's kind of late, but could we have some questions?

1. Has any of Moore's work changed your opinion on issues such as gun control or Bush's "dubious" election victory?

2. It was revealed that some of the scenes in Bowling for Columbine were faked. Do you trust Moore, nevertheless?

3. Did you support the stance Michael Moore made at the Oscars, or was it over-indulgent?

4. Honestly... is he doing it for the money, or because he likes the issues being exposed?

5a) As an American, do you feel that a fellow American attacking your country so openly is a good thing? -or-

5b) If you are non-American, have your views on America been changed by Michael Moore?

6. If everyone was like Michael Moore, and didn't believe everything the government told them, would the world be a better place?

7. Go on... on a huggabulity scale of 1 -> 10, 1 being unhuggable, 10 being Teddy Bear status, where do you rate Moore? And, would you hug him? (yes, it's another deep Knockturn Alley debate question, I see :D.

1. Considering I agreed with him to begin with, I don't he's really changed my opinion. Rather he's made my views stronger.

2. What do you mean by faked? There's such a thing as a staged event like a press conference. Then there's completely making something up to get a desired response.

3. I supported it. Sometimes you have to do something like that to get people talking.

4. I think he does it to tell a side of the story that isn't being told. So what if he makes an irrational amount of money doing it?

5a. Moore is exercising a freedom of speech. I see nothing wrong with speaking your mind.

6. Yes. Suspicion keeps power in check. America puts the leaders in power. So they need to prove themselves to the people that elected them. The people don't owe the leaders anything.

7. I give him a 9. Quite hugable but I'd rather hug Shingo Katori.

[x Natalie x]

This is so awesome, people are actually replying to my thread. I just finished reading the Introduction of "Stupid White Men" and I'm hooked. The book is freaking awesome so far, probably because I'm not taking offense to anything he says because I'm Canadian:) Now to answer those questions.

*cracks knukles and wiggles fingers*

1. Has any of Moore's work changed your opinion on issues such as gun control or Bush's "dubious" election victory?

He has changed them soo much. "Bowling for Columbine" really did it for me.

2. It was revealed that some of the scenes in Bowling for Columbine were faked. Do you trust Moore, nevertheless?

It depends which scenes. I don't think any could be faked though.

3. Did you support the stance Michael Moore made at the Oscars, or was it over-indulgent?

I never heard what he said but my Civics/Religion teacher told my class what it generally was about. I support it. I totally agree with what HollywoodBob said about Mike being the only one with balls enough to say anything. Most celebrities agree with whatever cr.ap their leader says, just so they look good, like Britney Spears for example, and then you have people like Mike or The Dixie Chicks, who will say stuff about their leader. The Dixie Chicks didn't have their songs played on Infinite (?sp) radio stations, because Infinite was in favour of the war on Iraq.

4. Honestly... is he doing it for the money, or because he likes the issues being exposed?

I seriously think he likes the issues he's talking about. Why else would he? he doesn't seem like the type of person to care a lot about how much money he makes. Let me rephrase that: He doesn't seem like the person to care that he is making millions and millions of dollars, but cares that he is making enough to live, ie. being able to feed himself, have clothes to wear, a place to live, and being able to pay the bills. In "Stupid White Men" he mentions that he drives a $20,000 VW Beetle, not a $200,000 Mercedes-Benz. In "Bowling of Columbine" he isn't wearing Dolce e Gabana (?sp) or Armani either (maybe becasue he knows Armani is a sweat-shop company), he wears old T-shirts, old pants, and that same baseball cap.

5b) If you are non-American, have your views on America been changed by Michael Moore?

Yes they have.

6. If everyone was like Michael Moore, and didn't believe everything the government told them, would the world be a better place?

Probably, because then people wouldn't be idiots and falling for every piece of cr.ap the government dishes out. I don't only mean the American government.

7. Go on... on a huggabulity scale of 1 -> 10, 1 being unhuggable, 10 being Teddy Bear status, where do you rate Moore? And, would you hug him? (yes, it's another deep Knockturn Alley debate question, I see :D.

He's a slightly ugly man, but he is amazing, so I give him a 10:)

[Flagg]

You Americans really should be grateful about Micheal Moore no matter what you think about his work.

Because right now he's pretty much the only reason why we French people still have a little smidgen of respect left for the USof A.

no offense

[x Natalie x]

You Americans really should be grateful about Micheal Moore no matter what you think about his work.

Because right now he's pretty much the only reason why we French people still have a little smidgen of respect left for the USof A.

no offense
I love the man.

And I'm Canadian:)

[theseeker]

I think Michael Moore is a genius! I have seen Bowling For Columbine and Roger & Me, read Stupid White Men, and I saw his speech at the Oscars. I had never heard of him before he won the Oscar, but I liked his speech so I decided to read Stupid White Men. I want to get Dude, Where's My Country? soon.

1. Has any of Moore's work changed your opinion on issues such as gun control or Bush's "dubious" election victory?
Definitely. I didn't think it was right that "President" Bush won the election, but I was still shocked to read about the details of his election victory.

2. It was revealed that some of the scenes in Bowling for Columbine were faked. Do you trust Moore, nevertheless?
Well, I don't know any details of this, so I don't know.

3. Did you support the stance Michael Moore made at the Oscars, or was it over-indulgent?
No, I liked it, it was good, at least (as HollywoodBob put it) he had the balls to say something.

4. Honestly... is he doing it for the money, or because he likes the issues being exposed?
I think he just feels very stongly about the issues he covers in his books and movies, and wants other people to be more educated about them.

5b) If you are non-American, have your views on America been changed by Michael Moore?
Yes, and my views on Bush have changed a lot.

6. If everyone was like Michael Moore, and didn't believe everything the government told them, would the world be a better place?
No, because then Michael Moore wouldn't be an individual. But then again yes. Then again I don't know.

7. Go on... on a huggabulity scale of 1 -> 10, 1 being unhuggable, 10 being Teddy Bear status, where do you rate Moore? And, would you hug him? (yes, it's another deep Knockturn Alley debate question, I see .
Ummmmmmmm 8 1/2

[x Natalie x]

Two whole days exactly.

[Animagi rock!]

1. Has any of Moore's work changed your opinion on issues such as gun control or Bush's "dubious" election victory?

Not really, the election was covered from a critical view in the media from the beginning here in Europe, so he didn't say much that I didn't know before

2. It was revealed that some of the scenes in Bowling for Columbine were faked. Do you trust Moore, nevertheless?

Some people have said that Moore faked some of the scenes in his film to convince people of his views, however there are just as many who disclaime that. I tend to believe that Moore, while definately being biased on the subject, didn't fake the scenes.

For those people who don't know which scenes we're talking about, I have two websites. One with the claims of Moore faking scenes (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html) the other with a response to this website that defends Moore (http://www.kuro5hin.org/story/2003/8/12/171427/607). It's quite a lot to read, but it's interesting all the same. Who you believe in the end is up to you, I guess.

3. Did you support the stance Michael Moore made at the Oscars, or was it over-indulgent?

It was his good right to make that statement, as over-indulgent as it might have been. I believe that he deliberately made his statement in a way that would shock people because he knew he'd get more coverage that way and he wanted everyone to hear what he had to say. Not good style maybe, but Moore never minded that as long as he got his point across.

4. Honestly... is he doing it for the money, or because he likes the issues being exposed?

I doubt he's doing it for the money. How could he have known how successful his film/books would be in the first place? I don't think he minds having lots of cash (who would?) but his priority is to be able to tell things to the public that he thinks they ought to know.

5b) If you are non-American, have your views on America been changed by Michael Moore?

Not really. I base my views on America on what I experienced when I lived there and not on a film.

6. If everyone was like Michael Moore, and didn't believe everything the government told them, would the world be a better place?

I think it's good to question everything that people tell you, because you can only judge a situation if you know both sides of the story and politicians don't really have an interest in telling you about the other side of the argument. I also think that the same thing goes for Michael Moore and that you should be careful about blindly believing everything he says.

7. Go on... on a huggabulity scale of 1 -> 10, 1 being unhuggable, 10 being Teddy Bear status, where do you rate Moore? And, would you hug him? (yes, it's another deep Knockturn Alley debate question, I see :D.

What a highly philosophical question ;). I think I'd give him a 7.

[Auror Williamson]

Moore admits to altering "Bowling for Columbine" DVD


In a new column on his website titled "How to Deal with the Lies and the Lying Liars When They Lie about 'Bowling for Columbine,'" filmmaker Michael Moore has admitted to altering a caption he inserted over a 1988 Bush-Quayle commercial in the film.

Moore lashes back at critics of the Academy Award-winning documentary in his column, denouncing "character assassination" and "make-believe stories." After blasting his critics, however, he finally concedes that he inserted a caption over a Bush-Quayle campaign commercial that did not appear in the original ad, which we documented when the movie was originally released. Moore then corrected a factual error in the caption in the DVD and VHS versions of the film. Moore writes:

Actually, I have found one typo in the theatrical release of the film. It was a caption that read, "Willie Horton released by Dukakis and kills again." In fact, Willie Horton was a convicted murderer who, after escaping from furlough, raped a woman and stabbed her fiancé, but didn't kill him. The caption has been permanently corrected on the DVD and home video version of the film and replaced with, "Willie Horton released. Then rapes a woman." My apologies to Willie Horton and the Horton family for implying he is a double-murderer when he is only a single-murderer/rapist. And my apologies to the late Lee Atwater who, on his deathbed, apologized for having engineered the smear campaign against Dukakis (but correctly identified Mr. Horton as a single-murderer!).
Moore does not, however, explain that he inserted this caption over the ad - which made no mention of Horton - in order to manufacture a direct link in the audience's mind with the Bush campaign (Bush discussed Horton extensively on the campaign trail but the famous ad mentioning him was run by a third-party group linked to Bush media advisor Roger Ailes).

The filmmaker also defends himself unconvincingly against several other charges in the column. He claims, for example, that the use of Lockheed Martin rockets as launch vehicles for Pentagon satellites justifies this statement to a spokesman in the film (which he does not quote):

"So you don't think our kids say to themselves, well gee, dad goes off to the factory every day and, you know, he built missiles. These were weapons of mass destruction. What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?"
At one point Lockheed did build nuclear missiles at the plant in Littleton, Colorado, but not during the period in question (around the Columbine school shootings in 1999).

Moore also defends his presentation of former National Rifle Association president Charlton Heston's speech in Denver after the shootings, even linking to a transcript, but as David Hardy has shown, a comparison of the transcript with Moore's editing shows that it was presented substantially out of context.

It's progress that Moore has come clean about altering the caption and presented some evidence to try to back up his claims. However, close examination reveals that many of them still fall short.

[Field]

I think Michael Moore is a good entertainer. I found both 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Roger and Me' to be quite entertaining. I wouldn't take anything he says too seriously though. He definately has then tendency to be quite biased and make things out to be what he wants them to be.

Anyway, you might find this (http://www.cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=8676&highlight=michael+moore) to be interesting, as it discusses 'Bowling for Columbine' a bit :)
He is quite biased but his points do have truth in them.

[Auror Williamson]

Moore's Myriad of Mistakes


Michael Moore makes at least 17 factual errors or misrepresentations in his latest book, Dude, Where's My Country?, ranging from stating disputed information as fact to repeating a media myth to twisting his own sources. As a companion to our article about Moore's mistakes in Dude and his history of such distortions, here is a list of all the errors that we found in the book:

Page xiii: Moore claims that News Corp, the parent of HarperCollins, which published Stupid White Men, "dumped [the book] in some bookstores with no advertising, no reviews, and the offer of a three-city tour: Arlington! Denver! Somewhere in Jersey! In other words, the book was sent to the gallows for a quick and painless death." Yet in a February 5, 2002 letter on his web site, Moore stated that "HarperCollins is doing their best to get the book out there - but now, even they have run into resistance, with some bookstores telling them that they are not interested in having me come to their stores on the book tour" because of the controversial nature of the book. Later in the letter, he added that "I'll be hitting a couple dozen cities on the book tour, and I'll probably add a few more (if you'd like me to come to your town, let me or HarperCollins know!)." And directly contradicting his assertion in Dude, Moore wrote in a February 13 letter that his tour "initially included only three cities: New York, L.A., and Denver." Clearly, he is spinning the publicity campaign for his own book.

Page 9: Moore, writing about the connections between the Carlyle Group (a private investment firm with a politically powerful board of directors including George H. W. Bush Sr.) and the Bin Ladens, states that "After September 11, The Washington Post and The Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this strange coincidence. Your first response, [President] Bush, was to ignore it, hoping, I guess, that the story would go away. Your father and his buddies at Carlyle did not renounce the Bin Laden investment. Your army of pundits went into spin control... And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of the 'good' Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding." Moore is distorting the timeline of when that information came out: He cites Al Jazeera (no date) and two articles published before September 11, 2001 (the articles date from Feb. 28, 2001 and March 1, 2001), not after.

Pages 15 and 16: Moore asserts that Osama Bin Laden requires dialysis for a kidney condition. Moore continues by asking "how could [Bin Laden] have really pulled this off while his skin was turning green?" In fact, as one of Moore's own sources (a January 19, 2002 New York Times article) notes, the nature and severity of Bin Laden's health problems is in dispute. The Times quotes an unnamed official who says that "While there have been a lot of rumors about the status of his health, we do not have evidence to support that he has had kidney failure or is on dialysis." Yet another of Moore's sources, an Associated Press article of March 25, 2000, notes that in spite of questions about his health, "it has been business as usual for Bin Laden," and cites an unnammed Western intelligence official stating that "He is still operating an enormous terrorist network around the world."

Pages 17 to 19: Moore offers the suggestion that the Saudi government was behind the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. Ignoring the mountains of evidence connecting the hijackers to Al Qaeda, he asks, "What if September 11 was not a 'terrorist' attack, but, rather, a military attack against the United States?" (his italics) A few paragraphs later, he asks "did certain factions within the Saudi royal family execute the attack on September 11?" While leaks detailing classified sections of a congressional report suggest that the Suadi government provided some financial assistance to the hijackers (a charge denied by the Saudi government), there this no evidence that the Saudi government or Saudi officials helped plan the September 11 attacks.

Page 20: Moore quotes a New Yorker piece on page 4 of his book noting that "Once the FAA permitted overseas flights [after 9-11], the jet [with the Bin Ladens] flew to Europe." (Other reports have added credence to this version of events). But Moore writes on page 20 that "while thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!" In addition, a September 20, 2001 Boston Globe article notes that the Bin Ladens apparently chartered their own plane - they did not get a "free trip" as Moore suggests.

Page 23: Moore twists around the order of Attorney General John Ashcroft's claims in a Senate hearing in December 2001. Slamming Ashcroft for refusing to give the FBI permission to examine records of background checks for gun purchases by suspected terrorists, Moore writes "The Senate (and the public) only found out about Ashcroft's orders to stop the search for terrorists' gun files until December 2001, when Ashcroft not only proudly admitted to doing this in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee, but went on to attack anyone who would question his actions to protect the hijackers' gun rights. He told the panel that critics of his anti-terror practices were 'providing ammunition to America's enemies... To those who would scare peace-loving people with phantoms of 'lost liberty,' my message is this: Your tactics only aid terrorists." Ashcroft actually made the statement (which we condemned at the time) in his opening remarks, well before he addressed the issue of gun checks. Moore's framing makes it appear as though Ashcroft's controversial statement was made with direct reference to the issue of checking firearms records.

Page 43 (and all of chapter 2): Moore uses fake quotes as chapter headings, implying that Bush (or administration officials) said things they never said. The most problematic is "#3 Whopper with Bacon: 'Iraq has ties to Osama Bin Laden and al Qaeda!'" (page 53) He quotes Bush repeatedly stating that "We know [Saddam] has ties to Al Qaeda" - but provides no source suggesting the administration tied Saddam to Bin Laden personally.

Page 53: Moore repeats a well-debunked myth about Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark. he writes that "Clark has said that he received phone calls on September 11 and in the weeks after from people at 'think tanks' and from people within the White House telling him to use his position as a pundit for CNN to 'connect' September 11 to Saddam Hussein." Yet, as we have demonstrated, despite a somewhat ambiguous statement on "Meet the Press" last June, Clark has been consistent in his claim that it was a member of a think tank who contacted him, not the White House. A recent report in the Toronto Star identified the source of the call as a member of a Middle Eastern think tank based in Montreal. Moore also makes a second mistake in pluralizng the single call Clark has always referred to into "calls."

Page 58: Moore claims that the U.S. "oversaw the assassination of [Congo leader Patrice] Lumumba" in 1961. However, according to a July, 2000 US News & World Report article, Lumumba was actually killed by Belgian operatives (though, as that article makes clear, the CIA apparently did have its own plot to assassinate him).

Page 67: Moore claims that, in building the famous Maginot Line, France "built the bunkers facing the wrong way and Germans were deep into France before you could say 'garcon, stinky cheese, please!'" In fact, the Maginot Line was built with many of the heavy weapons facing back and to the flanks of the line, to allow the bunkers to support each other, and the German invasion avoided it entirely, coming through the Ardennes north of the line.

Page 69: Moore misrepresents US contributions to the United Nations oil-for-food program in Iraq as "trade." He writes, "There were claims that the French were only opposing war to get economic benefits out of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In fact, it was the Americans who were making a killing. In 2001, the U.S. was Iraq's leading trading partner, consuming more than 40 percent of Iraq's oil exports. That's $6 billion in trade with the Iraqi dictator." Most of the money, however, was used to purchase food and other UN-approved humanitarian aid; the rest went to pay war reparations and adminisratuve fees for the program. (For details on the program, see this report to Congress.)

Pages 74 and 75: Moore writes on page 74 that "between these two bombing campaigns [in Afghanistan and Iraq], according to some estimates, 9,000 civilians were murdered." On the next page, he writes that "A British-American research group in London announced estimates of civilian deaths due to the war [in Iraq] at between 6,806 and 7,797." Those claims come from two controversial sources: Marc Herold's "Daily Casualty Count" for the Afghan campaign, and the Iraq Body Count web site. As we have noted elsewhere, Herold's estimates of up to 3,600 civilian deaths are considerably higher than estimates from other media organizations, which range from a few hundred to 1,200. Herold's methodology, which relied upon on media reports (including reports using Taliban sources) and information from NGOs, has also come under fire. (Herold wrote a letter responding to our previous criticism). As Moore himself notes, the Iraq Body Count relies on a very similar methodology, with the same sort of problems - media and NGO reports are not always accurate, and the sources cited in those reports have not been critically evaluated by the researchers. Rather than simply citing these figures as coming from a "British-American research group," Moore owes it to his readers to provide a more accurate representation of his source.

Page 82: Criticizing Secretary of State Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations last February, Moore mocks his claim that "What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." Moore writes, "Just days earlier, Powell apparently was not so sure. During a gathering of CIA officials reviewing the evidence against Saddam Hussein, Powell tossed the papers in the air and declared: 'I'm not reading this. This is bull****." In context, he makes appear as though Powell had included the same suspect evidence he had called "bullshit" in the speech he eventually gave. However, the US News & World Report article that Moore cites details the process by which Powell winnowed out pieces of evidence he was uncomfortable presenting. The article concludes: "And plenty was cut [from Powell's speech]. Sometimes it was because information wasn't credible, sometimes because Powell didn't want his speech to get too long, sometimes because [CIA Director George] Tenet insisted on protecting sources and methods."

Page 110: During his criticism of the proposed Terrorism Information Awareness project, Moore claims that "There is usually very little in the way of an electronic or paper trail when it comes to terrorists. They lay low and pay cash. You and me, we leave trails everywhere - credit cards, cell phones, medical records, online; everything we do. Who is really being watched here?" Moore evidently forgot about the credit cards used by the Sept. 11 hijackers, which authorities used after the attacks to help retrace their steps.

Pages 111-112: Moore lists a number of examples of what he implies are abuses of the Patriot Act. He writes, "To date, there are at least thirty-four documented cases of FBI abuse under the Patriot Act - and at least another 966 individuals have filed formal complaints. Many of these people were just minding their own business, or seeking to partake in our free society. Consider these examples." The examples he cites, however, have nothing to do with Patriot Act or the FBI. He lists an anti-globalization activist who was questioned by "immigration officials" and a "State department agent"; a New York judge who asked a defendant if she was a terrorist; French journalists detained at the Los Angeles Airport; a local police officer in Vermont entering a teacher's classroom to photograph an anti-Bush art display; a college student questioned by Secret Service agents about "anti-American" material; and a Green Party activist questioned on his way to Prague. None of the incidents he lists happened as a result of the Patriot Act, however, nor did any of them involve the FBI as Moore implies (the French journalists were detained for improper travel documents, and the Green Party activist was questioned by the Secret Service, as Moore's own sources note).

Page 160: Moore notes that the 2003 Bush tax cut will likely reduce revenue to the states. Attacking the cut, he implies that the cuts led to early school closings in Oregon: "Take the kids in Oregon, whose schools were shut down early this year because they ran out of tax money." Oregon, however, passed a law in May 2003 decoupling its state income tax system from the federal government's, insuring that the 2003 tax cut would have no impact on the state's budget. In addition, one of Moore's own sources (a June 8, 2003 article in the New York Times Magazine) notes that the situation is far more complicated than Moore makes it out to be: Oregon voters had rejected a referendum earlier in the year that would have raised taxes to pay for schools and other spending.

Page 180: Moore claims that "The overwhelming support for the war in Iraq came only after the war began. Before the war, the majority of Americans said that we should not be invading Iraq unless we have the backing of all of our allies and the United Nations" (he provides no source for the claim). In fact, a Washington Post/ABC News poll conducted on March 17, which asked "Would you support or oppose the United States going to war with Iraq?" showed 71 percent in favor (59 percent were in favor one week earlier). Another Washington Post/ABC News poll taken Feburary 9 found 66 percent in favor of taking action against Iraq; when those who said they supported such action were asked if they would still support it without the backing of the United Nations, total support fell to 50 percent, with 47 percent opposed.

[Wab]

Moore, like all polemicists, makes mistakes, fudges facts and fiddles with emphasis.

At least (unlike, say, Ann Coulter and Charles Krauthammer, who are as bad and sometimes worse) he has a sense of humour.

[Dedalus]

That has to be one of the silliest articles I have ever read.

I know little about Micheal Moore, having had never read any of his books or watched any of his films, yet that article (posted above) still annoyed me greatly on his and all his fans behalf.

I like such nasty little lines like the use of "average American" (because that hints that a. the fans of his are in the minority, which I'm not sure is true and b. that the fans of his are weirdos) and going on about "hating America", merely to drive up people's patriotism when Michael Moore even disputes that very line in his website. I also enjoyed the mentions of Hollywood eliteists, like they're some evil people sat in high armchairs with white cats, cackling at the rest of the poor, decent hardworking people, and how it's going on like all left wing people are evil. It's just as much a load of propaganda as it's accusing Michael Moore of being! Where is that article from, Auror?

[Auror Williamson]

The previous article (http://www.frontpagemag.com/articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=8252)





Dude, Where's My Intellectual Honesty?


In his latest book Dude, Where's My Country? -- a polemic against President Bush -- liberal gadfly Michael Moore again demonstrates why he has a reputation as a slipshod journalist who has trouble getting his facts right.

Moore established his reputation for playing fast and loose with the truth in his first film, the 1989 documentary "Roger and Me," centering on General Motors layoffs in his hometown of Flint, Michigan. As the New Yorker's Pauline Kael wrote at the time, he manipulated the chronology of his film, implying that certain events were a response to GM's large 1986 layoffs when in fact they had occurred years before.

Moore's best-selling book Stupid White Men was no less factually challenged. In it, he made a number of mistakes, ranging from the sloppy (suggesting that the multiyear cost of a new fighter plane was all being spent in 2001) to the outright ridiculous (reprinting an outdated list of attacks on Bush from the Internet virtually unedited). "Bowling for Columbine," for which Moore was awarded last year's Academy Award for best documentary feature, continued the pattern. Critics, including my co-editor Ben Fritz and Dan Lyons of Forbes, documented how Moore repeated a well-debunked myth about supposed US aid to the Taliban, falsely portrayed a scene in a Michigan bank to make it appear as though one could open an account and walk out with a gun, and altered a Bush-Quayle '88 campaign ad, among numerous other distortions.

Moore has generally brushed aside such criticism with suggestions such as "How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?" as he put it to Lou Dobbs on CNN's "Moneyline." More recently, however, he has gone on the offensive, going so far as to suggest critics of "Bowling for Columbine" are "committing an act of libel" in an August 19 appearance on MSNBC. And in a long article posted on his web site, he denounces criticism of the film as "character assassination" and "make-believe stories."

Despite repeatedly dismissing his critics, Moore has recently acknowledged some of his errors. For instance, in the DVD release of "Bowling for Columbine," he changed the caption he inserted over a Bush/Quayle '88 campaign ad, making the text more accurate (although the viewer still is unlikely to realize that the text wasn't in the original ad in the first place). One his web site, Moore explicitly admitted making this correction in the film.

In two places in Dude, Where's My Country?, Moore implicitly acknowledges mistakes in his earlier works. On several occasions over the past two years, Moore has asserted that (as he put it on "Politically Incorrect") "the Bush Administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in part to -- give money to the poppy growers for the money they would lose because they can't grow heroin anymore." "Bowling for Columbine" continued the canard, asserting that the US gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Both of these are false; the aid, intended to help relive famine, was given to non-governmental organizations, not the Taliban. In his latest book, Moore finally gets it right, noting that the aid "was to be distributed by international organizations." (page 34)

Moore also implicitly corrects himself about what was manufactured at a Lockheed plant in Littleton, Colorado. In "Bowling for Columbine," Moore implies that the plant made nuclear weapons at or immediately before the time he visited. Actually, while the plant was involved in nuclear missile production years before, it now makes rockets that are used as space-launch vehicles for military and civilian satellites. In his newest book, Moore sets the record straight, writing that "Lockheed Martin, the biggest arms maker in the world, built rockets that carried into space the special new satellites that guided the missiles fired into Baghdad" during the recent war in Iraq. (page 74)

At least Moore is finally telling the truth about the US aid and Lockheed. Most other subjects come in for much more dubious treatment in the book. For example, Moore misstates the details of how members of the Bin Laden family left the US after Sept. 11, claiming that "while thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in U.S. history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!" (page 20) Yet a few pages earlier, Moore himself quotes a November, 2001 New Yorker article by Jane Mayer which notes that "Once the FAA permitted overseas flights [after Sept. 11], the jet [with the Bin Ladens] flew to Europe." (page 4) As this and other reports have made clear, the Bin Ladens did not leave the US until after the resumption of commercial flights. And a Boston Globe article of September 20, 2001 quotes a Saudi government official stating that the Bin Ladens chartered their own plane - hardly a "free" trip as Moore suggests.

Moore's penchant for conspiracy theories often leads him to stretch the facts or make laughable claims. Bashing the proposed Terrorist Information Awareness project, he writes that "There is usually very little in the way of an electronic or paper trail when it comes to terrorists. They lay low and pay cash. You and me, we leave trails everywhere - credit cards, cell phones, medical records, online; everything we do. Who is really being watched here?"(page 110, his italics) In Moore's fervor to indict the TIA system, he forgets about the credit cards used by the 9-11 hijackers, which were used to help retrace their steps.

Moore also repeats a well-debunked myth about Democratic presidential hopeful General Wesley Clark. According to Moore, "Clark has said that he received phone calls on Sept. 11 and in the weeks after from people at 'think tanks' and from people within the White House telling him to use his position as a pundit for CNN to 'connect' Sept. 11 to Saddam Hussein." (page 53) Moore cites a June 15, 2003 interview with Clark on NBC's "Meet the Press." Despite somewhat ambiguous phrasing in that interview, however, Clark, has subsequently been consistent in his claim that it was a member of a think tank who contacted him, not the White House, a fact buttressed by a recent report that identified the man who made the call. And Moore pluralizes the single call Clark refers to in the "Meet the Press" interview to "calls" - a claim Clark has never made.

In addition, Moore attacks the Patriot Act with an array of examples that have nothing to do with it. He introduces the list by writing that "To date, there are at least thirty-four documented cases of FBI abuse under the Patriot Act - and at least another 966 individuals have filed formal complaints. Many of these people were just minding their own business, or seeking to partake in our free society. Consider these examples." (page 111) Moore lists an anti-globalization activist who was questioned by "immigration officials" and a "State department agent"; a New York judge who asked a defendant if she was a terrorist; French journalists detained at the Los Angeles Airport; a local police officer in Vermont entering a teacher's classroom to photograph an anti-Bush art display; a college student questioned by Secret Service agents about "anti-American" material; and a Green Party activist questioned on his way to Prague. None of the incidents he lists, however, happened as a result of the Patriot Act, nor did any of them involve the FBI (the French journalists were detained for improper travel documents, and the Green Party activist was questioned by the Secret Service, as Moore's own sources note).

Bush's policies towards Iraq come in for particular criticism - and, in several cases, gross distortions. Moore writes that "There were claims that the French were only opposing war to get economic benefits out of Saddam Hussein's Iraq. In fact, it was the Americans who were making a killing. In 2001, the U.S. was Iraq's leading trading partner, consuming more than 40 percent of Iraq's oil exports. That's $6 billion in trade with the Iraqi dictator." (page 69) In reality, that "trade" was done under the auspices of the United Nations oil-for-food program, which allowed Iraq to sell a limited amount of oil to purchase humanitarian supplies. (For details on the program, see this report to Congress.) One can only imagine what Moore would have said if the U.S. refused to purchase Iraqi oil and allowed its citizens to starve.

At another point, Moore attacks Secretary of State Colin Powell's statement to the United Nations that "What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence." According to Moore, "Just days earlier, Powell apparently was not so sure. During a gathering of CIA officials reviewing the evidence against Saddam Hussein, Powell tossed the papers in the air and declared: 'I'm not reading this. This is bull****.'" (page 82) Moore makes it appear as though the speech Powell gave at the UN included the evidence he had called "bullshit." In fact, the US News & World Report article that Moore cites does note Powell's exclamation, but it details the process by which Powell winnowed out pieces of evidence he was uncomfortable presenting. The article concludes "And plenty was cut [from Powell's speech]. Sometimes it was because information wasn't credible, sometimes because Powell didn't want his speech to get too long, sometimes because [CIA Director George] Tenet insisted on protecting sources and methods."

Nor is Moore above twisting facts to attack the Bush administration's tax cuts. Moore criticizes the 2003 Bush tax cut for reducing revenue to the states. As one example, he writes, "Take the kids in Oregon, whose schools were shut down early this year because they ran out of tax money." (page 160) While Moore makes it appear as though the 2003 Bush tax cut shut down Oregon's schools, Oregon actually passed a law in May 2003 decoupling its state income tax system from the federal government's, insuring that the 2003 tax cut would have no impact on the state's budget. Moreover, as an article from the June 8 New York Times Magazine - one of Moore's own sources - notes, Oregon voters had rejected a referendum earlier in the year that would have raised taxes to pay for schools and other spending.

In a recent interview with Bookreporter.com, Moore was asked if he made a special effort to fact-check his new book. "All my work goes through a thorough fact-checking process," he said. "I hire three teams of people to go through the book and then two separate lawyers vet it. There is a reason that I have never been sued over anything in my three books -- that's because everything in them is true." Apparently, Moore needs to hire himself some new fact-checkers. Regardless of the supposed rigors of its vetting process, Dude, Where's My Country? cements Moore's reputation as one of our nation's sloppiest commentators.

[Midnightsfire]

That has to be one of the silliest articles I have ever read.
I know little about Micheal Moore, having had never read any of his books or watched any of his films, yet that article (posted above) still annoyed me greatly on his and all his fans behalf.
Frontpage magazine has among it's (dis) reputable authors Ann Coulter an intellectual moron who pretty much defines stupidity.

So take the article with a generous helping of salt.

[x Natalie x]

Frontpage magazine has among it's (dis) reputable authors Ann Coulter an intellectual moron who pretty much defines stupidity.

So take the article with a generous helping of salt.
Your signature scares me...

I am up to chapter 3 in "Stupid White Men". It is friggin' hilarious! The introduction is the best part so far. The first chapter talks about Georges eletion to the White House. Pretty interesting stuff.

[Hagrid442]

Michael Moore is the Left's version of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly (O'Lielly!) Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh all in one.

Occasional good points (O'Reilly), humorous (Rush), but enamored with shock tactics, smears, and lies, lies, lies (all 4)!

Take what all 5 have to say with a block of salt.

[HollywoodBob]

Michael Moore is the Left's version of Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly (O'Lielly!) Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh all in one.

Occasional good points (O'Reilly), humorous (Rush), but enamored with shock tactics, smears, and lies, lies, lies (all 4)!

Take what all 5 have to say with a block of salt.


Firstly I have to say, please don't include Michael Moore with those others. They're content to play along with the right wing agendas and want to maintain things the way they are.

Michael Moore makes his movies and writes his books because he wants to illuminate people to the kind of **** that no one wants to let the public know about. His hope is that people will realize that the way things work are not right, and we'll strive to change them.

Secondly, for people that believe Michael Moore's films and books are lies, perhaps you don't realize that the people/organizations that he attacks in his works have enough power that they could ruin him if he as much as uddered/printed a single lie. As he said in his article about the so-called debunking of Bowling,

I can guarantee to you, without equivocation, that every fact in my movie is true. Three teams of fact-checkers and two groups of lawyers went through it with a fine tooth comb to make sure that every statement of fact is indeed an indisputable fact. Trust me, no film company would ever release a film like this without putting it through the most vigorous vetting process possible. The sheer power and threat of the NRA is reason enough to strike fear in any movie studio or theater chain. The NRA will go after you without mercy if they think there's half a chance of destroying you. That's why we don't have better gun laws in this country – every member of Congress is scared to death of them.

Well, guess what. Total number of lawsuits to date against me or my film by the NRA? NONE. That's right, zero. And don't forget for a second that if they could have shut this film down on a technicality they would have. But they didn't and they can't – because the film is factually solid and above reproach. In fact, we have not been sued by any individual or group over the statements made in "Bowling for Columbine?" Why is that? Because everything we say is true – and the things that are our opinion, we say so and leave it up to the viewer to decide if our point of view is correct or not for each of them.

So, faced with a thoroughly truthful and honest film, those who object to the film's political points are left with the choice of debating us on the issues in the film – or resorting to character assassination. They have chosen the latter. What a sad place to be.

If you're interested in reading the entire article you can get it at http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/

There are laws against slander and libel, and when you are a person like Mr Moore, you have to be extra certain that you are clear on facts and opinion. I personally feel that the authors of the previously posted articles a guilty of libel and defamation and Mike should sue them for it. But he won't because he's above that kind of childhood "I didn't get my way so I'm gonna call you names and tell on you" mentality.

To sum up, if you don't like Michael Moore that's your perogative, but don't say the man is a liar simply because you don't agree with him. If you're content to being treated like a mushroom by our government (being kept in the dark and fed nothing but ****) that's your right.

-HollywoodBob

[Wab]

Secondly, for people that believe Michael Moore's films and books are lies, perhaps you don't realize that the people/organizations that he attacks in his works have enough power that they could ruin him if he as much as uddered/printed a single lie.

Good point. Any of his major targets could destroy him if he actually produced an actionable libel.

And from what I could see Columbine ultimately came back to two questions I've often asked: "Why are Americans so afraid?" and "Why do they feel compelled to shoot each other when comparable societies don't?"

[Auror Williamson]

...Ann Coulter an intellectual moron who pretty much defines stupidity.

And Mikey Moore is brilliant? :rolleyes:




Mike on Small Businesses



"Small businesspeople are the rednecks that run the town and suppress the people. **** 'em all, that's how I feel." -- Michael Moore

It's well known that Michael Moore doesn't like corporations. Well, he doesn't like small businesses, either. In 2002 Moore visited Humboldt State University, and it was covered by the local newspaper. Arcata, the town, had a pending legal restriction against "pattern" restaurants (TGI Fridays, Chili's, etc.) His comment?

"Where will you eat?" he asked. "Can't you have at least one Jamba Juice?" . . . Asked about Arcata limiting the number of pattern restaurants to nine, Moore said he didn't think it was a good idea.

Michael Moore, champion of the common man, standing up for a huge corporate interest over a small business owner? Say it ain't so! But, my friends, it gets better.

Moore seemed to embrace capitalistic Darwinism. "If the small businesses suck they'll be driven out of business," he said. "If they got a good restaurant, people will go there and eat. You know in my town the small businesses that everyone wanted to protect? They were the people that supported all the right-wing groups. They were the Republicans in the town, they were in the Kiwanas, the Chamber of Commerce - people that kept the town all white. The small hardware salesman, the small clothing store salespersons, Jesse the Barber who signed his name three different times on three different petitions to recall me from the school board. **** all these small businesses - **** 'em all! Bring in the chains. The small businesspeople are the rednecks that run the town and suppress the people. **** 'em all. That's how I feel."

So, how important are small businesses to the US economy?

*Represent more than 99.7 percent of all employers.
*Employ more than half of all private sector employees
*Pay 44.5 percent of total U.S. private payroll.
*Generate 60 to 80 percent of net new jobs annually.
*Create more than 50 percent of nonfarm private gross domestic product (GDP).
*Supplied 22.8 percent of the total value of federal prime contracts (about $50 billion) in FY 2001.
*Produce 13 to 14 times more patents per employee than large patenting firms.

These patents are twice as likely as large firm patents to be among the one percent most cited.

*Are employers of 39 percent of high tech workers (such as scientists, engineers, and computer workers ) .
*Are 53 percent home-based and 3 percent franchises.
*Made up 97 percent of all identified exporters and produced 29 percent of the known export value in FY 2001.

Sources: U.S. Bureau of the Census; Advocacy-funded research by Joel Popkin and Company (Research Summary #211); Federal Procurement Data System; Advocacy-funded research by CHI Research, Inc. (Research Summary #225); Bureau of Labor Statistics, Current Population Survey; U.S. Department of Commerce, International Trade Administration.


So, corporations are bad because they downsize and outsource and manufacture products overseas. The flip side of that, then, are the small businessmen, who have ideas and implement them locally. They're friends of the area, they know their clientele on a personal level. Small businesses are the backbone of the US economy.

And what does Michael Moore say? " *** all these small businesses - **** 'em all! Bring in the chains. The small businesspeople are the rednecks that run the town and suppress the people. **** 'em all. That's how I feel."

You Michael Moore fans really need to think hard about the difference between what you think Michael Moore stands for and what his own words show he stands for. He cares about the working man only when there's a fee in it for doing so.

And let me state, for the record, that Moore is free to do this. This is the essence of capitalism, and we live in a free market. But it is the sheer height of hypocrisy to position himself as a champion of the working man when he obviously, through his harsh words reported here, cares not a whit for the realities of life for the average Joe.

And it's time those working men, those small business guys who do welding and roofing and drywall and all the other multitude of critical services our lives and economy need to function, begin to understand that Michael Moore is using them to make himself filthy stinking rich.

[HollywoodBob]

Moore's point is valid though, small businesses that prevent the opening of large corporate chains are evil. They price gouge, they provide poor service, and stifle the economy of a town. And they get away with it because they control the city councils and pass laws forbidding companies that would otherwise put them out of business from coming in and putting them out of business.

Moore is still looking out for the working man, the ones that pay to keep the sucky small businesses open because their only choice is to shop with them or drive 30 miles to the next town to get groceries. Try living in a small town, you'll see what I mean when you go to the local grocery store and have to pay 2$ for a can of soup or the local hardware store and paying three times what the cost is at Lowes or Home Depot.

While I agree that many service based businesses have no large scale alternates, such as welders and roofers, the ones that do have alternates shouldn't force a community to patronize them buy preventing a larger company from offering their clientele a choice. It's not really fair to use them to defend small business though seeing as they themselves buy their materials from large corporate hardware/building material chains.

And remember, the dream of 99% of small business men is to end up rich corporate mogels like Col. Sanders, Bill Gates and Sam Walton. The ones that say it's not are lying to you and to themself.

-HollywoodBob

There's really no point in continuing this thread, Auror will continue to regurgitate right wing doctrine, and I'll keep trying to defend Mr Moore, and all it'll do is spiral down into a flame war.

[Auror Williamson]

There's really no point in continuing this thread, Auror will continue to regurgitate right wing doctrine, and I'll keep trying to defend Mr Moore, and all it'll do is spiral down into a flame war.


I really don't intend to let it go into a flame war. All I am doing is simply stating fact. Last time I checked, stating fact and opinion does not constitute a flame war.


I'm getting a good portion of my material from Spinsanity.org (http://www.spinsanity.org/) (A big thanks to Midnightsfire for directng me to the site back in August! :)) The website is bipartisan, criticizing both the left and right wings. They lay out the facts, and meticulously support them.


Michael Moore Sued Over Anti-Gun Movie



Detroit — James Nichols, the brother of Oklahoma City bombing conspirator Terry Nichols, says he was tricked into appearing in the anti-gun documentary Bowling for Columbine, according to a federal lawsuit filed against filmmaker Michael Moore.

Nichols also alleges in the lawsuit, filed in Detroit, that Moore libelled him by linking him to the terrorist act.

Nichols accuses Moore of libel, defamation of character, invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress. His lawyer is asking for a jury trial and damages ranging from $10-million to $20-million (U.S.) on each of nine counts, the Detroit Free Press reported.

A message seeking comment was left Tuesday with Moore's publicist.

In the film, Moore asks Nichols for an interview and steers the subject from the Oklahoma City bombing to gun ownership. Nichols tells Moore he has a gun under his pillow, and Moore asks Nichols to show him.

In the lawsuit, Nichols, who lives in Decker, said Moore misled him about the purpose of the interview.

Bowling for Columbine won the feature-length documentary Academy Award earlier this year.






Moore Problems


A San Francisco activist claims she's the originator of Michael Moore's unsourced list of dubious Bush achievements in his bestselling "Stupid White Men"


A list of 48 dubious achievements of President Bush appears in Michael Moore's bestselling "Stupid White Men," without footnotes or citations of any kind. A reader might assume that they are accumulated nuggets from Moore's own research.

But a San Francisco activist says she came up with the list, and she's not too happy about the way Moore is using it.

Kirsten Selberg contacted Spinsanity following a piece detailing the numerous errors and factual distortions in "Stupid White Men" to say she compiled that list for a wall that was displayed at the "Voters March West" that took place nearly a year ago in San Francisco, on May 19.

Still posted on the Voters March Web site, Selberg's list contains 47 of the 48 facts about Bush mentioned in Moore's book -- in the exactly the same order and with very similar wording. The only difference is that, unlike Moore, Selberg provides sources for almost all of her facts.

Representatives for Moore did not respond to requests for comment.

It's quite possible that Moore got his list from any number of sources besides Selberg's wall. As both she and David A. Sprintzen (wrongly cited on some Web sites as the author of the list) explain, the list was frequently forwarded through e-mail last summer, presumably while Moore was writing his book. More recently, it showed up on a number of liberal Web sites.

While Moore didn't bother to source or footnote the Bush list, at least he got his facts straight in this case, unlike much of the rest of his book -- though he does manage to change Labor Department official David Lauriski's name to Dan.

As Selberg points out, though, nothing on the list has been updated to reflect developments since it was written. To take one example: She wrote -- and Moore repeats -- that Bush proposed to cut the "Reading is Fundamental" program in his original education plan. By the summer, however, when Moore was still writing his book, media reports showed that the money was restored as the plan made its way through Congress.

If Moore had bothered to update the list, she wouldn't be so irked, says Selberg. "What upset me at first is that Moore and so many others have been repeating this list without bothering to give it the serious update it needs," she told me. "I don't mind that my work is being used by other people, but I'd like to see it updated and accurate rather than just repeated over and over by people who won't do their own research."

[Hagrid442]

Holy broad-sweeping stereotypes, Batman! Now, I agree that some small business people aren't all that great of people, but many are. And their customers tend to appreciate the more personal service they provide. But what do they know? They must all be ignorant rednecks! I'm sorry, but even if Moore tends to be closer to me ideologically, he's a poor representative to my ideals.

I believe in capitalistic Darwinism. Too many companies mismanage themselves, but know that the government will bail them out. Thus they have little incentive to run themselves efficiently and cleanly.

And he's a plagiarist, too! Oh my! So much of his ideas aren't original, yet he cashes in on them?

[Auror Williamson]

Recently a wealthy Chicago couple named Drobney announced their plan to bankroll a left-wing talk radio station. They needn’t bother: the Left already has a multimedia star—and even without a radio station, he’s bigger than Rush, has more fans than O’Reilly, and sells books faster than Coulter. Followers plead with this “folk hero for the American people” to run for president. Reviewers compare him to Twain, Voltaire, and Swift. Unlike Rush and company, the appeal of this blue-collar megastar extends far beyond the hoi polloi. Hollywood and Manhattan agents wave gazillion-dollar contracts in front of his face. He wins prestigious awards that will never grace the Limbaugh or O’Reilly dens—Oscars, Emmys, Writer’s Guild Awards, and jury prizes at Cannes (where his latest movie received a record 13-minute standing ovation). People stop him on the streets of Berlin, Paris, and London—where, according to Andrew Collins of the Guardian, they consider him “the people’s filmmaker.”

He is, of course, Michael Moore, author of the best-selling Downsize This! and Stupid White Men and the director of Roger and Me and Bowling for Columbine. Those unfamiliar with Moore probably learned about him during the Oscar ceremonies in March, when, several weeks into the war in Iraq, he won the award for best documentary and came to the stage to speak—or so he said—for his fellow documentary nominees. “We like nonfiction and we live in fictitious times,” he intoned. “We live in a time where we have fictitious election results that elect a fictitious president. We live in a time where we have a man sending us to war for fictitious reasons. Whether it is the fictition [sic] of duct tape or the fictition of orange alerts, we are against this war, Mr. Bush! Shame on you, Mr. Bush! Shame on you!”

Well, the speaker ought to know. As critics have pointed out repeatedly, Moore himself is a world-class expert on fictition; in fact, when it comes to truth telling, not to mention logic, you might say: less is Moore. But if the copious charges of lies and distortions don’t make a dent, it’s because Moore’s fabrications are the very source of his appeal. Not only has he created an enormously clever fictional character whose name is Michael Moore—a contemporary Will Rogers, able to channel Noam Chomsky via Chevy Chase; a working-class, truth-telling schlub in a trucker’s hat who shuffles out of his La-Z-Boy recliner to seek answers to folksy questions from the high and mighty—he has also conjured up a fictional America that seductively taps into long familiar populist resentments that have their most recent incarnation in the rage of the anti-globalization Left.

In May, I went to see Moore give a talk to graduating seniors at a liberal arts college outside New York City, and it was easy to see why the kids went nuts. Moore recalled the Left as I remembered it in the “you-can-change-the-world” sixties—funny, confident, passionate, idealistic, full of possibility. As you might expect, he poked fun at conservatives, but also at liberals, those long-suffering targets of political satirists. “You must have a conservative in your family—an uncle or someone,” he said confidingly. “That person never loses his car keys. He has every key marked: this SUV, that SUV. Our [the liberal] side goes [in a timid, whiny voice], ‘Do you know where my car keys are? . . . Where do you want to go to dinner?’ ‘Gee, I don’t know. Where do you want to go to dinner?’ Right-wingers go [slamming the podium] ‘GET IN THE CAR! WE’RE GOING TO SIZZLER!’ ”

Moore was humble. He giggled disarmingly at his own jokes. He blushed and looked at his feet during the standing ovation. He told how he was so inexperienced when he made his first movie that, during an interview, Jesse Jackson had to show him how to use his sound equipment. He was also full of concern for the little guy. “Maybe I was raised the wrong way, but my parents taught me we’ll be judged by how we treat the least among us.” He promised truth in a world of corruption and lies. “When I got out of my seat, and they all rose in standing ovation [at the Oscars], I could just stand there and soak up all the love, blow them a kiss, and get the hell out of here. But there’s a little voice, ‘You have work to do.’ ” He was upbeat and inspirational. “Americans are far more progressive than you think. . . . Change this world. Make the playing fields level for everyone. One person can make a difference!”

It was a great act—the operative word here being “act.” It’s best to think of Moore as always a performer, one who is not only the star of his own show but also its subject matter. And therefore any attempt to understand Moore or his intense appeal to an alienated Left has to begin with the man himself.

Moore grew up in Flint, Michigan, where his father assembled AC spark plugs at General Motors. It was in many respects an ordinary midwestern working-class boyhood of the 1950s. The young Moore attended mass with his parents, joined the Eagle Scouts, and learned to shoot; he became a champion marksman, a fact he would mine decades later in Bowling for Columbine. But Moore also took to activism at a young age. At 16, he gave a speech in a local contest, condemning the Elks for barring blacks. His speech won the prize, and attracted much media acclaim, including a call from CBS. According to Moore, it even prompted the Elks to change their policy. In his teens, Moore briefly joined a seminary, he says—he was a great admirer of the radical priests, the Berrigan brothers—but he soon opted for a more secular pursuit of politics. By 18, he had won a seat on the local school board.

Soon after freshman year, he quit college and started an alternative newspaper called the Flint Voice (later the Michigan Voice), and in 1986 he went to work for the national left-wing magazine Mother Jones. There—not for the first and certainly not for the last time in his life—he managed to alienate his admirers; after four months, he got fired. Moore claimed political differences, but those at the magazine said he had been utterly unprofessional: arbitrary, suspicious, and impervious to deadlines. In any case, he sued Mother Jones, eventually settling for $58,000, which he used as seed money for Roger and Me. Though he’d never made a film before, Roger and Me was screened at the Telluride film festival, resulting in a distribution deal that made it the highest-grossing non-concert documentary ever—until Bowling for Columbine.

Yet for all his fame and achievement, the most important fact about Michael Moore—and the foundation of a populist philosophy that verges on the reactionary—remains his birthplace. Moore is from Flint the way Odysseus was from Ithaca; his home haunts his every thought and feeling. “This was Flint as I remembered it, where every day was a great day,” he says in a voiceover in Roger and Me, a movie in which he sets out to track down Roger Smith, the General Motors CEO who ordered the factory closings that turned Flint into a rust-belt disaster in the 1980s. The movie is a paean to his beloved birthplace, an evocation of the populist’s lost golden age, an industrial counterpart to the agrarian Brigadoon, where life was whole, people were genuine, and everything felt secure. Moore has a wistful vision of Flint as the birthplace of the modern labor movement with the famous 1937 strike that culminated in the founding of the UAW, which he presents as a progressive union that integrated the assembly lines and secured its members health-care benefits and enough money to buy homes and cars of their own. He evokes a vanished time, when laborers and corporate elites joined in a mutual spirit of loyalty and honest exertion. “My dad didn’t live with this kind of fear,” he has said of contemporary job instability. “The social contract then was, if you worked hard and the company did well, he did well.”

Moore’s image of Flint makes him the ideal poet of the Naderite Left. The city symbolizes the sadness and populist outrage over a world lost to the New Economy and its voracious global corporation. In Roger and Me, the camera lingers on block after block of boarded-up houses, and Moore interviews desperate people, some being evicted from their homes. The fallen landscape is for Moore a symbol of a lost world, in which people like the laboring men of Flint made real stuff—steel, cars, trucks—before being swept away by the flabby and artificial post-industrial economy.

Though not without its appeal, Moore’s vision oozes with more 1950s nostalgia than a Loretta Young fan club. There’s hardly a hint of the mechanical repetition endured by the men and women who bolted thingamajigs to widgets on the assembly line; one of the workers interviewed in Roger and Me says he is happy to escape “the prison” of the GM factory floor, even though he’s taken a cut in salary, but the director does not seem to notice. And while it is true that the UAW was integrated, Flint was hardly an Eden of racial harmony. As Jim Lawrence, a black labor activist at a GM plant in Dayton, Ohio, describes it, during the 1960s “the union gave foremen a blank check to mistreat blacks and keep them out of the high-rate machine jobs and the skilled trades.”

More misleading still is the director’s melodramatic narrative of corporate downsizing and Flint’s decline. During Moore’s golden childhood, when his father was assembling spark plugs, the United States was the world’s preeminent manufacturer. But by the 1980s, that world was passing—and not because of black-mustachioed CEO villains. For the first time, as other industrial nations recovered fully from World War II, American companies were battling genuine competition from abroad; by 1980, the U.S. commanded only 25 percent of manufacturing output, down from 42 percent in 1962. Especially hard hit were the heavy industries of the rust belt like the automotive companies. As cheap, well-made foreign cars flooded the market, industries introduced ad campaigns to “Buy American.” But people were not easily dissuaded from purchasing Honda Civics when their last Impala had dropped its transmission and its muffler.

Faced with these realities, companies had no choice but to cut costs and improve quality and productivity. They laid off workers, and organized those who were left into teams that had to take responsibility for the quality of their product. It wasn’t just blue-collar heads that rolled. Restructuring, aided by waves of computerization, meant wiping out entire layers of management, a process that was bloody and sometimes deeply unjust: Moore is right that CEOs often compensated themselves royally, while their downsized ex-employees worried about buying shoes for their kids. But the fact is that many industries emerged from the carnage more competitive and better equipped to avoid layoffs in future recessions. Back in 1988 Ross Perot, GM’s most prominent critic before Moore, quipped that dealers complained that “[w]hen you step on the accelerator, a Cadillac needs to move.” Today, as just one example of the success of the nation’s industrial restructuring, the Cadillac is moving again, America’s luxury competitor to the Lexus and BMW—and talk about Japan as Number One stopped years ago.

In Downsize This!, Moore attempted to elaborate on the theme of the downsized economy where Roger and Me left off, but the book’s description of a rust-belt dystopia of pink slips and unemployment checks was out of date way before it hit the bookstores. By 1996, the number of jobs and heft of paychecks in the Midwest had improved markedly. In 1998, the Department of Commerce was writing that “[m]ore flexible, market-oriented companies have generated hundreds of thousands of jobs” in Michigan. A 2001 Michigan Economic Development Corporation report noted that, with the exception of still-depressed Flint, the state’s metropolitan areas saw an increase in personal income between 1989 and 1998, with income rising more than 20 percent in places like Ann Arbor and Grand Rapids.

Stuck in the Walter Reuther past, Moore can make no sense of this. A while back, he was appalled when The Nation asked him to be part of a lecture cruise, “to hold seminars during the day and then dock at Saint Kitts at night!” he hissed derisively, as if it were still the era when plutocrats in tuxedos and women in gowns and diamonds dined on caviar and champagne with the ship’s captain, while workingmen and women scrimped for a week’s vacation at a dank lake bungalow. He seems not to know that plumbers from Milwaukee and secretaries from Akron fill Caribbean cruise ships these days (though probably not those sponsored by The Nation), and that factory workers often sport two cars—and a boat on a trailer—in their driveways. Our economic system has “got to go,” he told Industry Central, before admitting, “Now don’t ask me what to replace it with because I don’t know.” How convenient: he can dwell in his mythical land of Flint and never face the manifest truth that the system that downsized and restructured with such turmoil ultimately improved living standards for millions, while at the same time absorbing hosts of poor immigrants.

Moore is hardly the first to engage in a little nostalgic mythmaking. What makes him unique is his willingness to construct his myths on a scaffolding of calculated untruths. It’s an irony worth savoring. Moore’s chief conceit is that he is the lonely truth teller, seeking out the story no one else is brave enough to touch. He repeatedly blasts the media for ignoring issues that only he, a lowly college dropout, has the courage to bring before a hoodwinked public. “In the beginning there was a free press—well not really, but it sounded good,” the announcer of his TV series, The Awful Truth, would say as the show opened. But the awful truth is that Moore himself is a virtuoso of lying—which is the only way he can give the appearance of truth to his untenable theories.

Let’s begin with his bold-faced lies. In an appearance on Comedy Central’s Daily Show in March 2002, Moore announced that during the period that planes were grounded for two days after the September 11 attacks, the Bush administration allowed a Saudi jet to whisk away bin Ladin family members over FBI objections. As Snopes.com, an Internet site devoted to tracking down urban legends, points out, the planes did pick up bin Ladin family members—on September 18 and 19, days after commercial flights had already begun flying again, and they did so only after the FBI had questioned the departing Saudis. At the college talk, I witnessed another stunner, when Moore announced—without so much as a blip on the polygraph line—that, even though the media report that children in intact families are better off, “every study shows that’s a big lie. Children of single mothers do better in life.”

Then there are lies of omission, a genre that reaches its apogee in the movie Bowling for Columbine. Prompted by the horrific murders by Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine High School in Littleton, Colorado, in 1999, Bowling is Moore’s putative attempt to explore why America endures so much more gun violence than other industrialized countries. It seems to make sense when he interviews the punk singer Marilyn Manson, whose violent lyrics the Columbine killers favored. Yet Moore’s point is not what you’d expect. Objecting that to “scapegoat” Manson for the murders makes as much sense as blaming bowling, since the killers supposedly bowled on the morning of the murders, Moore listens with reverence to Manson’s theory—which happens to be Moore’s own—that Americans are violent because we live in a “culture of fear.” Never mind that the investigators at Columbine have concluded that the killers did not go bowling that morning; the larger point is that Marilyn Manson chose to name himself after Charles Manson, one of America’s most infamous mass murderers. Moore says no word about any of this.

Then there are what we might call artistic lies. Bowling for Columbine opens in a branch of the North Country Bank, with Moore supposedly receiving a free gun in exchange for opening an account. At the end of the scene, he asks a bank employee, “Do you think it’s a little dangerous handing out guns in a bank?” before he runs out with the gun in his hand to the beat of a punk rock tune. It is a dazzling opening, full of energy and Dr. Strangelove absurdity. The only problem: it was staged. Commentators have been on Moore’s case about this, some even campaigning to revoke his Oscar, awarded for a genre supposed to be nonfiction. Anthony Zoubeck, a self-described “former Moore fan” who writes for the Illinois State University paper, the Daily Vidette, contacted Helen Steinman, the customer-service representative seen greeting Moore in the bank. “You can’t just come in here and get a gun,” Steinman explained. Moore “was only supposed to be coming in and pretending to open up a CD. What the girl who opened up the account really told him was that there would be a background check and that he wouldn’t get the gun for six weeks.”

There are slanted, insinuating lies. In another example from Bowling, Moore places a Lockheed Martin executive from Littleton, Colorado, right in front of a mammoth, menacing-looking rocket and asks: “So you don’t think our kids say to themselves, ‘Gee, you know, Dad goes off to the factory every day and, you know, he builds missiles. These are weapons of mass destruction.’ ” He also observes darkly that the company moves its products through the community late at night, when “the children of Columbine are asleep.” But Lockheed Martin does not make weapons in Littleton; it makes weather and communications satellites there. The missile in the film is a refurbished Titan 2 rocket used to launch one such satellite. Moreover, as Zoubeck learned from a Lockheed spokesman, the company moves the rockets at night because they are so large they need a convoy—not, as Moore insinuates, because anyone is trying to hide the awful truth about weather satellites.

And there are the lies of exaggeration—details that after marinating in Moore’s brain swell into squishy conspiracy tales, like one of those dried sponges that swell prodigiously in water. Take what happened during a March 2002 book-tour appearance for Stupid White Men, his 2001 screed against the Bush administration, corrupt corporate power, and (as one chapter title puts it) this “idiot nation.” At 11 PM, Moore was still signing books for a line of fans at a San Diego school, when event organizers announced that the janitors wanted to close up and go home, since the use permit was up. Moore paid little attention and went on signing books, until someone—apparently the janitors—called the police about half an hour later. At this point, according to Kynn Bartlett, a disappointed fan who wrote about the event on his website, two cops walked in with flashlights—Bartlett points out that it was dark in the parking lot outside—and calmly announced: “May I have your attention. The use permit for this event expired at eleven. You have to leave now.” After some grumbling, everyone did.

End of story—until Moore breathlessly posted his version on his website the next day. POLICE RAID, SHUT DOWN MY BOOK SIGNING IN SAN DIEGO. “I am told that we are getting close to the time when we will have to leave the school,” Moore’s fiction begins. “That is not good. Hundreds are still in line.” (Bartlett estimates there were 75.) Moore continues: “The San Diego police [all two of them, Bartlett says] are coming down the aisle, their large flashlights out (the auditorium lights are still on, so we all understand the implied ‘other’ use of the instruments).” People are “visibly frightened,” “bolt[ing]” toward the doors. “I remark that it feels like we’re in some sort of banana republic or East Berlin, secretly meeting so we can have our little book gathering. Sign quick, Mike, here come the police.” There’s not a word about janitors forced to work overtime to please celebrity authors.

So does that mean that Moore’s career as the pied piper of union workers is also a lie? The best that can be said is . . . not entirely. Moore appears to give a good deal of money to unions and charities. But on the road he often stays at the Ritz or Four Seasons, like other movie millionaires. (And he is always on the road: though he loves to describe himself as a slacker, he endured a 47-city book tour for Downsize This, a tour he made the subject of his disastrously narcissistic movie, The Big One, and he hit scores of cities for Stupid White Men.) Former employees have accused him of trying to stop them from joining the Writer’s Guild and, according to interviews conducted by The Weekly Standard’s Matt Labash, of creating working conditions that resemble a “sweatshop” and “indentured servitude.”

In fact, there are plenty of indications that Michael Moore is not a compassionate, big-hearted man dedicated to social justice; he just plays one on TV. When asked by a reporter from the Arcata Eye in 2002 why he wasn’t speaking at independent bookstores rather than at corporate chains, he exploded in a tirade that revealed his willingness to have his principles—in this case, his distrust of corporate power—take a backseat to his personal vengefulness. “You know in my town the small businesses that everyone wanted to protect? They were the people that supported all the right-wing groups,” he ranted. “They were the Republicans in town, they were in Kiwanis, the Chamber of Commerce—people that kept the town all white. The small hardware salesman, the small clothing store sales persons, Jesse the Barber who signed his name three different times on three different petitions to recall me from the school board. **** all these small businesses—**** ’em all. Bring in the chains.”

Not that Moore isn’t capable of spouting a few nasty racial stereotypes himself. “[T]he kind of people who fly in airplanes want someone else to clean up their mess; that’s why they let hijackers take the plane,” said this frequent (first-class) flier late last fall in a one-man show in London. “If the passengers had included black men, those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes, who as we all know take no disrespect from anybody. . . . The passengers on the planes on 11 September were scaredy-cats, because they were mostly white.”

Moore’s defense when he is charged with lying or hypocrisy, as he frequently is, sounds more like Richard Nixon than Will Rogers. He keeps voicing suspicion that large, nefarious powers are set on destroying him. A bad review of Roger and Me in Film Comment ?“Film Comment is a publication of the Film Society of Lincoln Center. Lincoln Center had received a $5 million gift from GM just prior to publishing the piece trashing Roger and Me. Coincidence? Or just five big ones well spent?” The failure of his only fictional feature film, Canadian Bacon? The distributor, Polygram, buried it, because the company is “owned by Philips of the Netherlands, makers of weapons.” Booing at the Oscars? In an interview with the San Jose Mercury News, Moore insisted, “Those boos were amplified . . . as I looked out at the audience no one was booing. You could see the camera desperately trying to find people who were disagreeing with me and they couldn’t.” Criticism in the online magazine Salon? Borders bookstores, one of Salon’s advertisers, was angry that he had been supporting workers who wanted to unionize—oh, and Salon’s editor has a “personal grudge” against him. Oh, and the writer, whom Moore wrongly assumes belongs to Manhattan’s literary elite, is worried because “one of ‘them’ (i.e. me) has moved into the neighborhood. Ooh, scary. A guy who’s supposed to be building Buicks in Flint is now prowling the streets. . . . Somebody circle the wagons! Protect the Starbucks!” As Moore told a Stanford student who asked him to respond to criticism of Stupid White Men, “It’s always personal.” For Moore, at least that much is true.

So how has an embittered, cynical man with a paranoid streak as wide as Montana and a dysfunctional relationship to the truth been able to present himself so successfully as a compassionate, salt-of-the-earth, truth-seeking hero? One answer is that he makes people laugh. Not only does humor make it harder for charges of lying to stick—as Moore asked Lou Dobbs, “How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?”—it also makes people open to what he has to say. “Humor is welcoming,” he told the college audience in May. “People want to listen to you at that point. . . . I don’t come off as Mr. Know-It-All.”

At his best Moore pokes fun at hypocrisy in time-honored fashion. In one of TV Nation’s yippie-style pranks, he threw a “Corp Aid” benefit concert on Wall Street to help “needy corporations.” In another episode, produced during the Gingrich years, he went to Cobb County, Georgia, and opened GOBAC, the Committee to Get Government Off the Backs of Cobb County, whose aim was to send the county’s $4 billion in federal aid back to Washington.

Moore also successfully synthesizes a style that is simultaneously Heartland Joe’s Diner and MTV—or “Leave It to Beaver meets Metallica,” as he put it in a different context. Roger and Me, the film that transformed the documentary from a professorial lecture into hip entertainment, is filled with kitschy Americana—beauty queens, marching bands, Anita Bryant songs. Moore himself speaks slowly in a flat midwestern accent and looks like someone who buys his clothes at KMart, yet he still conveys a Saturday Night Live sensibility. Moore’s hip humor also flatters the snobbery of many of his voguish fans, who ordinarily would have nothing but contempt for blubbery guys in saggy jeans and trucker’s hats.

The other key to Moore’s appeal is his simple Manichaean moral system, the kind that populists traditionally invoke to stir up easy resentments, as with today’s alienated Left. Moore’s world comprises two groups: stupid but powerful white guys in suits, like Roger Smith; and decent but powerless ordinary folks, like Michael Moore. For Moore, this is not some kind of comic-book schema; it is as real as sin itself. Nike CEO Phil Knight is “the face of evil.” President Bush, today’s incarnation of the evil plutocrat in Moore’s mind, is “capable of anything.” “The other side [the rich]—what they believe in,” Moore said in an Internet interview, “is in their own kind of sick Darwinism that says only a few shall survive to have the American dream. And they spend their time trying to enact laws to guarantee that the majority won’t.” Downsizing and welfare reform, which Moore calls “inherently evil,” are both examples of “terrorism” committed by malevolent rich men.

In Bowling for Columbine, Moore dwells on the case of the six-year-old boy who shot and killed a classmate in, coincidentally, Flint, Michigan. The boy got into trouble, Moore informs us, because welfare reform forced his mother, Tamarla Owens, to work two jobs and left her unable to care for her son. Moore does not mention that the boy and his mother were living in a crack house filled with guns, or that social workers had previously cited Tamarla Owens for being “involved with drugs” as well as for child abuse, including an incident where, according to Newhouse News Service, she admitted holding down another of her children so that two male friends could beat him with a belt. Nor does he mention that poverty rates and well-being for black children have improved markedly since the “terrorists” passed welfare reform. But why would he? The test of his moral system is the degree of resentment it inspires, not facts and reason.

Much of Moore’s Manichaeism will be yawningly familiar to anyone accustomed to the weird myopia of the far Left these days. America—or “the corporation known as The United States of America,” as Moore puts it—is inhabited by a race of greedy, uncaring, racist freaks, equipped with what Moore calls “the stupid gene.” Above all, Americans are violent. “Guns don’t kill people; Americans kill people,” Moore has said. Worldwide, people suffer for only one reason: not religious or political tyranny, but the malevolent policies of stupid white American men, descended from paranoid Puritans and covetous Italians.

More bizarre still are Moore’s theories about the attacks of September 11, an event that has plunged the filmmaker into an agony of cognitive dissonance, an ideal breeding ground for the paranoid conspiracy theories that come so naturally to him. In hundreds of letters, interviews, and articles, Moore shows no sign of having read the first thing about al-Qaida, militant Islam, or the Middle East. That hasn’t stopped him from concluding that bin Ladin is no danger. “Ooh . . . he’s everywhere,” he joked at Stanford University, waving his arms bogeyman-like. “Usama bin Ladin—he could be here tonight!” “What if there is no terrorist threat,” he has asked, and the Bush administration simply wanted an excuse to curtail civil liberties while it pursued its corporate interests?

Moore seems to forget his own stoking of fears of terrorism. “There is a rage building in this country, and if you’re like me, you’re scared shitless,” he wrote in Downsize This!. “I believe thousands of Americans are only a few figurative steps away from getting into that Ryder truck,” like the one packed with explosives by Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh. Terrorism by downsized white Americans is one thing: that’s scary. But external threats by foreign terrorists? It just cannot be. “Many families have been devastated tonight. This is just not right,” Moore wrote on September 12, 2001, as the World Trade Center and the bodies of 3,000 lay in smoking ruins. “They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him. Boston, New York, D.C., and the planes’ destination of California—these were the places that voted AGAINST Bush.” In Moore’s Manichaean world, if Republicans alone had died on September 11, they would have had it coming.

Moore’s moral stupidity, so ratcheted up by September 11, is likely to drive his next film, a documentary about the “twin errant sons of different oilmen”—George W. Bush and Usama bin Ladin. The filmmaker is hoping to release the movie, called Fahrenheit 9/11, a few months before the presidential election, to “make sure that Bush isn’t returned.” All signs point to his usual techniques—facts stripped of context and detail, dark insinuations, and outright lies, all leavened by pop music and Strangelovian irony.

Tracing some of Moore’s recent comments, one can piece together the argument—or rather the hazy impressions, for Moore never constructs an argument—that will make up this so-called documentary. Moore will insinuate that the United States created Usama—“or USA-ma, which is more appropriate considering we trained him to be a terrorist.” He will tell us that in the late nineties the oil firm Unocal held a meeting with Taliban representatives in Houston, “when Bush was governor,” to talk about building a pipeline through Afghanistan. He will imply that this project was the reason the U.S. gave humanitarian aid to the Taliban, until “the deal went south,” and “suddenly the Taliban were evil.” And thus, Michael Moore will finally reveal the awful truth that only he is courageous enough to admit about why the United States really went to war with the Taliban.

And you can be sure that the trendy sophisticates in Cannes and Hollywood will once again rise to their feet to honor their mendacious auteur, European intellectuals will bow before his Manichaean simplicities, and the international radical Left will cheer the moral obtuseness of the man who has made his fortune turning the documentary into fiction.

[Hagrid442]

Well... the US did train Osama, but any so-called business connections between he and the Bushes is pure conjecture.

I have many of the same blue-collar sentiments that Moore plays. And I agreed with every word that he uttered at the Oscars. However, I don't admire mendacity. It's unfortunate that honesty was one value he didn't pick up from his working-class roots.

[dink]

Ick. I don't want to get caught up in any of this debating and article-quoting going on in here. :) I've read a couple of Moore's books, and enjoyed them. I've been impressed with his energy, his belief that people can make a difference, his encouragement to everyone to get into politics. I expect some of the facts are stretched a little - just as they are in newspapers, on TV, on the radio, in other books - but it's good to hear a different side of the argument for a change.

However, I think he doesn't go into quite enough depth on the subjects he covers, and a friend of mine pointed me towards Greg Palast's "The Best Democracy Money Can Buy" which has turned out to be much more thought-provoking, and seemingly much more accurate with its facts.

[Midnightsfire]

Well...I more or less see Michael Moore as more of an entertainer than anything.

And to keep things on an even keel, check out the links on spinsanity;
Issues and current events (http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#Issues)
Politicians and government officials (http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#Politicians)
Pundits and commentators (http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#Pundits)

[Mary Jane]

"I don't compromise my values and I don't compromise my work. That's why I've been kicked from one network to the next: I won't give in." -Michael Moore

I love Michael Moore, I think he is just what the good 'ol US of A needs right now.

The comment from Flagg the Frenchman was about right on. Our politicians have the nerve to waste resources to rename "French Fries" to "Freedom Fries." The French did not agree with the USA's invasion of Iraq so they rename food? Even more sad are the people of this nation who follow suit (such as one of my coworkers) who will not eat Yoplait yogurt because it is "French." Oi!

And do you know what arguement I hear most often for bashing La France? "We bailed their butts out of WWII, now they can't return the favor!" Nevermind the fact that the French made it possible for us to be a nation, but what kind of weird standard is that? We came to the aid of several countries during a terrible war, now they don't want to help us start one, well shame on them!

For me it is easy to see why Hemmingway became an expatriate. I thank God that Michael Moore is not. It is because of people like Michael Moore that we are NOT on our way to living in a dictatorship. People who are willing to stand up and point out things that aren't right. Someone, who when he had the spotlight for a few minutes, did not shy away from social responsibility, but said what I hear "around the watercooler" everyday - Shame on you, Mr. Bush!

I don't know how many of you saw it, but I thought it was beautiful. Nobody else dared speak on political issues. Other than Moore, the most controversial thing was Adrian Brody's public molestation of Halle Berry. I don't think he did it for personal gain as it was not well received by Hollywood.

[Wab]

Just a point cutting and pasting articles without attribution is illegal.

[swishandflick]

Okay, so Moore isn't the most credible of sources. To really develop one's position on a subject the best way to do it is from finding different sources, doing your own research, and coming to your own conclusions. I don't automatically trust everything Michael Moore says just because he is Michael Moore.
The point is that Moore is a "shock and awe" type of person. He has his own agenda just like anyone else involved in politics. That doesn't mean he doesn't make any good points or isn't valuable in the media. I agree with alot of the basics of Moore's arguments. Even if handing out guns at a bank was staged, that doesn't change my position on gun control. I don't think its possible to find someone in politics who doesn't lie (er...Honest Abe?).
Should Moore give back his Oscar because of his lack of credibility? Well, considering the Academy gives out awards to people who lie for a living (actors) I don't think Moore will be asked to give back his Oscar anytime soon. The Academy, I'm sure, has made countless errors in giving out awards. It's not as is the Oscars are a benchmark for credible journalism.

[Emerson]

1. Has any of Moore's work changed your opinion on issues such as gun control or Bush's "dubious" election victory?
I've always been an advocate of more gun control and, like everyone else who voted Gore (at least, I did figuratively :)), I was very hacked off at what happened in the election. Moore provided a nice summary of the events that took place.

2. It was revealed that some of the scenes in Bowling for Columbine were faked. Do you trust Moore, nevertheless?
I expect Moore to embellish on occaison, but yes, for the most part, I trust him not to lie.

3. Did you support the stance Michael Moore made at the Oscars, or was it over-indulgent?
I thought it was great! I didn't understand the duck tape line though.

4. Honestly... is he doing it for the money, or because he likes the issues being exposed?
He's giving away his entire Bush tax cut, I really don't think he's doing this just for the money.

5a) As an American, do you feel that a fellow American attacking your country so openly is a good thing?
First of all, attack is the wrong word. Criticize, with reason, yes.

6. If everyone was like Michael Moore, and didn't believe everything the government told them, would the world be a better place?
It is simply naive to accept everything your government tells you as fact. The government doesn't necessarily have your best interests at heart.

7. Go on... on a huggabulity scale of 1 -> 10, 1 being unhuggable, 10 being Teddy Bear status, where do you rate Moore? And, would you hug him?
He's a 10 on the hand-shakeability scale. I would love to shake his hand.

[Muggle]

1. Has any of Moore's work changed your opinion on issues such as gun control or Bush's "dubious" election victory?

I wouldn't say that his work has changed my opinions, but it certainly has made me more aware of important issues.

2. It was revealed that some of the scenes in Bowling for Columbine were faked. Do you trust Moore, nevertheless?

Revealed by who/what? There's lots of BS on the internet about bowling for columbine "lies", and anyone can make claims on the net without backing them up.

http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/wackoattacko/


3. Did you support the stance Michael Moore made at the Oscars, or was it over-indulgent?

Yes, 100%. It was great, he said things that needed to be said. Most people wouldn't have the gutz to do something like that.

4. Honestly... is he doing it for the money, or because he likes the issues being exposed?

No.

5a) As an American, do you feel that a fellow American attacking your country so openly is a good thing?

He openly attacked the current "government", not the country. The country is suppose to be a democracy, so anyone who claims that not supporting the Bush "administration" is being Anti-American need to do some serious thinking.

Secondly, I am Canadian - so even if he did bash America, I wouldn't care.

6. If everyone was like Michael Moore, and didn't believe everything the government told them, would the world be a better place?

Ignorance is bliss. If more people actually thought about the government's claims instead of swallowing them, this world would be a better place.

7. Go on... on a huggabulity scale of 1 -> 10, 1 being unhuggable, 10 being


He's a 10 on the hand-shakeability scale. I would love to shake his hand.

[hermy_weasley2]

I think Michael Moore exaggerates information that will prove his point. I would do the same if I were in his position, I'll admit that. He's biased, but everyone's biased. I think he over generalizes too much too; With terms such as "typical American." Every time I hear that I want to ask "What's a typical American?"

6. If everyone was like Michael Moore, and didn't believe everything the government told them, would the world be a better place?

Maybe, but some people are just followers. If they start to not believe the government, they would all believe someone. That's not good either. What are we supposed to do? Question the government and blindly follow Michael Moore?

5a) As an American, do you feel that a fellow American attacking your country so openly is a good thing?

He's not attacking the country exactly. Yes, he over generalizes, and yes most of those generalizations are negative, but it's the more the government that he's attacking. I've said this before, but "country" and "government" are two different words. If you start saying that governments represent the people, Michael Moore is a prime example that that is not true. He claerly doesn't agree with the U.S. government, but he doesn't claim not be American. If he does provide negative (often generalized) points of view, it's mostly criticism, not an attack.

Why do they feel compelled to shoot each other when comparable societies don't?

The vast majority of Americans aren't blood- thirsty, cold-blooded murderers. Surprisingly enough, at least some of of us are fairly nice people. Maybe not me, but I'd never kill anyone. I try to be nice though. This is what I mean by generalizations. Michael Moore would make it sound as if shooting people was a common hobby in America( I know that's an exxageration, somewhat). And maybe what people label "comparable socieites" aren't nessicarliy comparable. America isn't Europe. It isn't Japan. It isn't Australia. It isn't Canada. It's seperate.

No offense Wab. I'm just using the question from your post. I didn't even read it all.

[Wab]

The vast majority of Americans aren't blood- thirsty, cold-blooded murderers. Surprisingly enough, at least some of of us are fairly nice people. Maybe not me, but I'd never kill anyone. I try to be nice though. This is what I mean by generalizations. Michael Moore would make it sound as if shooting people was a common hobby in America( I know that's an exxageration, somewhat). And maybe what people label "comparable socieites" aren't nessicarliy comparable. America isn't Europe. It isn't Japan. It isn't Australia. It isn't Canada. It's seperate.

Okay I'll put it this way. Why does the USA have such a high rate of gun-related deaths compared to other western democracies with similar values and cultural diets?

[Hagrid442]

Okay I'll put it this way. Why does the USA have such a high rate of gun-related deaths compared to other western democracies with similar values and cultural diets?

Because it has a powerful lobbying group called the NRA that thinks any curtailment to the access of firearms, even reasonable concessions like waiting periods; "ballistic fingerprinting"; and bans on assault weapons are unconstitutional. Gun manufacturers are also immune from lawsuits.

Yes, I'm pretty liberal when it comes to gun laws. However, I like Howard Dean's suggestion that states control firearms. Howard Dean has an "A" rating from NRA, so he's quite pro Gun Rights.

Oh yeah... I put my name on this (www.nrablacklist.com)

[Sineed]

I wish the media would scrutinize Bush's military record with the same zeal it has used to examine Michaal Moore's work.

I'm a media junkie, and I have found Mikey to be generally accurate, though he sometimes over-simplefies a point for the sake of an easy joke. As far as the facts go, who's to say what those are? I read the right-wing sites and get one version of "the facts", and then I go to the left-wing sites and get another version of "the facts." Somewhere amongst all these facts lies the truth.

Mike challenges the rich and the powerful, and they are going to spend their money and wield their power as best they can in order to discredit him. And part of that effort would go into nit-picking what Mike says.

[Hagar]

I hate Moore with a passion, the man sickens me. I honestly can't read his junk for more than a few minutes without throwing his book across the room. Don't believe a word the man says, he manipulates the truth so much it's just plain lies. He puts words into peoples mouths and uses the trickiest video editing I've ever seen to get his lies across.

Read This (http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html)

I can't wait for the new documentary coming out called, "Moore Hates America." Should be good.

[Sineed]

But surely in a country which enshrines free speech in its constitution, it is only proper for a patriot to critisize his country where he finds it lacking. When Mike is called a liar, does this mean that there isn't massive gun crime in the US, exceeding all other Western democracies, or that George Bush's election was entirely legit, or that the Iraq war was justified?

Recall Mike's interview after his Oscar speech. When asked why he said what he did, he replied,

"Because I'm an American."

The reporter said, "Is that all?"

Mike: "Isn't that enough?"

'Nuf said.

[PadfootBlack]

Someone placed a link mentioning letters to Moore from soldiers deployed in Iraq. Being in the armed forces myself, I was overly curious at what they had to say. I was amazed.

There was one guy that was mad that he was deployed while his wife was 6 months pregnant. I hate to say this, but that's his fault. We don't have a draft anymore, ladies and gentlemen. Everyone over there volunteered until the contract they signed expires. Then he went on to say that he accidentally shot himself in the hand while he was on guard duty. He blamed it on his lack of training for the M-9 pistol. (The simple, everyday pistol that most police agencies might use.) I'm sorry, but the number one rule for using any weapon, including the M-16 assault rifle which he has undoubtedly been extensively trained to use, is not to point it anything you don't want to shoot.

Suffice it to say that the rest of the letters were just as silly. Most of them had one thing in common. They mentioned a time when they heard Michael Moore speak and were obviously influenced by his speaking power. Sound familiar, maybe Nazi Germany? I guess you could compare the current US government, too. It's only fair. I just won't do it. The only difference is that Moore's strategy is having a negative impact on the National Defense. If he keeps trying to get everyone in the military to hate the constitution they defend, they'll stop doing their job and someone is likely to get hurt or even killed.

[Wab]

Which parts exactly does teh free-speaking NRA member hate?

[Desdemona]

well now. ive read his books, watched his movies, and think hes a great entertainer, but as a man with a message for the nation? Puhlease, hes a lot of hot wind and likes to point out flaws in a society which could never be perfect anyway. In trying to satirize society, he has ended up being a satire of himself.

He came to visit us at the Cambridge Union Soc. and was pretty much rude to us throughout, establishing a "fact" to us that all us cambridge students were rich and got in on "daddy's money anyway". the truth is, if he wants his thoughts to be taken seriously he shouldnt make such crass generalisations. i have an overdraft of -£700 and im pretty much going to reach a financial breakdown in a few weeks, Daddy isnt paying for much of it, i can tell you now. am i a rich daddys money cambridge student? no. so thats his generalisation out of the window, and i know a few more of us like me.

a rude attitude might get people's attention in public, but it doesnt make what you're saying right or correct. everybody loves an entertaining attention seeker who voices anti-government sentiments, nobody stops to think where he could be wrong they get so caught up in being "naughty".

(and now, im going to get blasted).

[Hagrid442]

I'm not going to blast you Desdemona for your perception of Michael Moore. You've come face-to-face to him. The more I know about him, the more I dismiss him for the hack that he is.

Any serious liberal should really take a closer look at him, and ask themselves if they want too much association with this guy.

[Sineed]

Here's a thought: Mikey called George Bush a deserter, to many cries of outrage. As everybody rushed to refute Mikey's claim, they made a startling discovery: they couldn't. Now there is massive media scrutiny of his military record, and his popularity is plunging.

Whatever you think of Mike, is it possible that he started a chain reaction that may well bring down a president??

[PadfootBlack]

I don't know how many of you watched the Oscars last night, but I can definitely tell you the part I liked the most. Michael Moore made a cameo appearance on the big battlefield from The Lord of the Rings and got trampled by one of the huge elephants. YES!!!

Too bad it wasn't real.

[Hagrid442]

LOL Padfoot.

Or how about when they show classic movies, the Trojan Rabbit landing on him ala Monty Python's Search for the Holy Grail?

[PadfootBlack]

hehehe

[Magi]

1. Has any of Moore's work changed your opinion on issues such as gun control or Bush's "dubious" election victory?

No.

I had the distinct impression that Moore was very anti-gun (ie. ban all guns), which I do not agree with, even though I've always thought limited gun-control is necessary.

And although I do not like Bush, I believe he won the election fair and square.

2. It was revealed that some of the scenes in Bowling for Columbine were faked. Do you trust Moore, nevertheless?

No I do not trust Moore. I trust very few political documentaries, especially from those made by the extreme left or right.

3. Did you support the stance Michael Moore made at the Oscars, or was it over-indulgent?

It was not the right time or place.

4. Honestly... is he doing it for the money, or because he likes the issues being exposed?

Both.


5b) If you are non-American, have your views on America been changed by Michael Moore?

No.

6. If everyone was like Michael Moore, and didn't believe everything the government told them, would the world be a better place?

That's a poor way to describe Mr Moore. If the government in the US was one that conformed to his views, he certainly would believe them.

Faith in the government should not be dependent on a person's political ideology.

7. Go on... on a huggabulity scale of 1 -> 10, 1 being unhuggable, 10 being Teddy Bear status, where do you rate Moore? And, would you hug him? (yes, it's another deep Knockturn Alley debate question, I see

His score would be 1. I would not hug him for any money.

[Sineed]

I thought I'd take a break from working on my entry for the fan-fic contest to indulge in a little politics, and answer this quiz. Mike can be a bit of a buffoon, but you are all so hard on him.

1. Has any of Moore's work changed your opinion on issues such as gun control or Bush's "dubious" election victory?

I've always been in favour of gun control, and Mike's an NRA member, so his attitude towards guns doesn't affect me.

But his analysis of Bush's election "victory" is very interesting. Has anybody refuted it?

2. It was revealed that some of the scenes in Bowling for Columbine were faked. Do you trust Moore, nevertheless?

Do they mean faked, or staged? For instance, I live in Toronto, and I'm sure they checked before he went barging into people's houses in Toronto. His larger point was that we tend to leave our doors open, unlike in many American cities (no offense), and the fact that they warned people ahead of time before a 300-pound filmmaker went shambling into their front hallways doesn't make Mike a fake, just a showman.

Or would you call him a liar because I lock my door at night, and when nobody's home?

3. Did you support the stance Michael Moore made at the Oscars, or was it over-indulgent?

It was so right on. I'm a big fan of the Oscars. What makes the shows great is the outrageousness: the outrageous costumes sometimes worn, like by Cher (not recently, unfortunately), the outrageous acts (the streaker, and David Niven's reaction; Marlon Brando's rejection of his Oscar), and the outrageous statements made by all sorts of people with a variety of axes to grind. Is it inappropriate and out of context? Sure; so what?? It's fabulous television. I also laughed my butt off when the giant elephant trampled Mike in the intro of last night's show.

And once again, I ask, one year later, has anybody refuted what he said?

4. Honestly... is he doing it for the money, or because he likes the issues being exposed?

You don't make documentary films for the money. He scraped and begged to get the cash together to make "Roger and Me." It's a fluke he's been so successful.

I find it odd so many right-wingers take Mike to task for being successful. Isn't that kinda contradictory?


5b) If you are non-American, have your views on America been changed by Michael Moore?

No. I'm half-American, and I have lived in the US, including California, Maine, and Maryland (my father was in the military). So I know too much about the US to have my opinions changed by one person.

In fact, I frequently defend the US against ill-informed critics by telling them that the most scathing criticism of that country comes from within its borders. And Mike is probably the best-know example internationally. Think of all the countries in the world where people get thrown into jail, or worse, for the mildest opposition to the government. The fact that Mike can speak his mind with impunity shows what a great country the US is.

6. If everyone was like Michael Moore, and didn't believe everything the government told them, would the world be a better place?

One should never have faith in the government. And I'm speaking as a civil servant.

Questioning the government's authority is an essential part of being a citizen of a democracy.

7. Go on... on a huggabulity scale of 1 -> 10, 1 being unhuggable, 10 being Teddy Bear status, where do you rate Moore? And, would you hug him? (yes, it's another deep Knockturn Alley debate question, I see

Uh ... he's about three times my weight. I think he'd kill me ...

[Angora]

The only exposure I've had to Michael Moore is Bowling for Columbine, a re-play of his Oscar speach, and a couple of Tv interviews. I have mixed feelings.

On the one hand, the points that he's trying to get around to are usually things that are very close to my heart, or else conclusions that I tend to agree with, although I might not be particularily passionate about it.

On the other hand, I sometimes wish he would shut up.

There's a bit of a grotesque element to what he says that came through for me in Bowling. By which I mean that most of what he says is true, but contextually it's intentionally misleading - simplified to the point that important complexities are lost in translation.

Like, maybe I misunderstood the "open door" segment. Because I take for granted that you're not always going to lock your door when you're at home. Maybe that's not the case in America but I would be a little surprised if it wasn't. And the biggest city that he went to here wasn't all that big as far as cities go... So, while it's true, it's misleading. It's an implicit exaggeration.

Yes, Charlton Heston is a complete wack job. He's the perfect example of someone who should not have a weapon. He's the worst gun owner possible... but that's the thing right there. He's an easy target because he's the worst gun owner possible. It's an implicit exaggeration - it's a grotesque picture of a gun owner. The facts are correct. The implied meaning is not. And I'm very anti-gun, and I see this.

I can respect Bowling as an artistic expression of an idea, but it's not being presented that way. It's being presented as journalism (outside of the context of the film, I mean) and even if there is no good journalism on the face of the earth because good journalism has been destroyed by the media... this is still not an example of good journalism. And I'm calling it as an example of bad journalism, regardless of whether bad journalism exists on the part of his opponents or not.

And this brings me to the part where I want him to shut up: All it does when you present a suspect basis for your claims is to make your claims seem safely riddiculous to the people who don't agree with you. It puts you two steps backward. It gives people an easy target to aim at - I mean look at all the right-wingers who have latched onto the Buch/Gore campaign ad segment. Do you think they saw anything of value in the argument, or do you think they saw the mistakes? Do you think that made them think about the issues, or do you think that just reinforced their own beliefs for them because it presented easy oportunities to call the opposition riddiculous? And it makes it so much harder for someone to present a solid argument when there's this kind of thing going on in the background.

On the one hand, like I said, I agree with where he was going with it, but I think in the way that he got there, he built a big straw man that's really easy for people to take a shot at, and that that isn't actually constructive. Look at in in reverse - there are a lot of republicans who are decent people and really wish George Bush would shut up because they see that he's not doing them any favors by making republicanism look riddiculous. Kind of the same thing here. Not to the same degree.

And I think that a big reason why this happens with Moore is that while I'm sure he thinks it's important to know that The Wizard of Oz is actually just a guy behind a curtain, he derives a lot of satisfaction, and pleasure and his sense of self worth from being The One Person Who Knows What's Behind The Curtain. And I think that his own need to derive a sense of specialness from it becomes really apparent in scenes like the one where he convinces the store to stop selling a certain kind of ammunition - and they don't really put up a fight - and so he immediately turns the bluster on full force, changes his request to one he knows they won't go along with, and makes the whole thing about himself... It's just... I appreciate the sentiment. I wish he would put more thought into it.

Oh, and:
I also enjoyed the mentions of Hollywood eliteists, like they're some evil people sat in high armchairs with white cats, cackling at the rest of the poor, decent hardworking people...
Hee.

[Hagrid442]

Disney refuses to release Michael Moore's new movie Fahrenheit 911 (http://money.cnn.com/2004/05/05/news/fortune500/disney_moore/index.htm?cnn=yes)

I'm no Michael Moore fan (I routinely call him the Ann Coulter of the Left), but this ticks me off. This reminds me of the Reagans movie that conservatives were oh-so-offended by. The movie's critical of Bush! So therefore, it must be censored.... :huh:

[Wab]

If nothing else it's a great title.

[HollywoodBob]

Ah free publicity. :D

Edit: It seems that Moore and his agent are claiming that Eisner wants it blocked to protect the tax cuts that the company receives in Florida.

Disney can try to squash it all they want, but the movie will come out. Harvey Wienstein is a bulldog when it comes to the rights of the independent filmmaker.

Edit: Miramax faced similar problems when releasing "Kids" in '95, they solved the problem by creating a new company, Shining Excalibur Films, to release it.

-HollywoodBob

[HollywoodBob]

Reviews of the Cannes screening of Fahrenheit 911 from Ain't it cool news.
Michael Moore's FAHRENHEIT 9/11 Gets 15 to 25 Minutes Of Standing Screaming Ovation at CANNES!
Hey folks, Harry here... Here's the first two reports on Michael Moore's FAHRENHEIT 9/11 for AICN from Cannes! About 35 minutes after it screened, I got a screaming telephone call from an incredibly enthusiastic British sounding gentleman telling me that he'd just attended the most astonishing filmic event he'd ever seen. The film apparently knocked the roof off he place... He claimed that there was a 25 Minute Standing Ovation... though I've seen reports that claimed it was only 10 minutes, some say 15 and even 20 minutes... but that instant call said, 25 minutes... that spy was on his way to the after party to try and scoop more scoop for us. BUT - he felt it was the most important film ever made and that everyone everywhere should see it. HAVING SAID THAT - Most level headed critics seem to be saying this is Michael Moore's worst film and that had he stuck more to the "rules" of documentary - that he could have had a truly powerful and great film... but that the film bares no resemblence to a Documentary - and is more of a Left Wing Political Pamphlet for those that need the obvious spelled out to them. That being said, Michael Moore has never claimed this to be a documentary - but as a rallying cry to overthrow a tyrannous ******* (in his eyes) and get people out there *****ing, talking and motivated politically.

Hi guys,

Sorry not to have sent cannes reports as i used to do for previous years. but This year, i got a looot of work to do here. Anyway just seen Michael Moore's latest. Here's my point of view.

As I didn't slept for three days, I'm afraid, it's even more mumble-jumble than usual...

Everyone wanted to see this film. And once one saw Farenheit 9/11, filmcritic is found well embarassed. First because this film resists any critical judgement.to say "I adored " or "I hated" Michael Moore’s film isn’t of any utility. Why? Because Farenheit 9/11 is much more one opinion column than a film in oneself. Just can one argue on the shape of film, where Moore deciphers the actions of Bush adminstration, from faked election of George W to the néo-Vietnam that has become the war in Iraq. Initially it takes again the speech of Bowling for columbine showing the necessity for any government with the capacity of exploiting any type of fear on its citizens for better achieving goals fixed in shadow. Until there, this is known ground, between systematic demonstration by absurdity or contradictory of untrue behaviors. The continuation leaves Farenheit 9/11 the Moore tactic, when contrary to its preceding films, he’s not filming himself investigating but leaves the word to archives images or particularly recent images he comments from time to time, to decipher them. Farenheit being summarized then with simple but effective film of assembly, without real point of view of setting in scene. Thing gets thicker in the last part, where Moore almost disappear. On screen, word is to soldiers in Baghdad or to their relatives. For long sequences summarizing the distress or anger, in particular that, very poignant where a mother whose son died in Kerbala reads his last letter. Moments strong enough to avoid any overtext or explanation. but leading to only one point : Bush mustn't be reelected in november.

Strangest remaining the context where the film has been shown, in this very particular festival, principality of the privilege and sometimes of the factitious one. Making wonder whether if Cannes is offering a platform to Moore, or the festival using its step to improve some competition without any huge buzz or favorite so far. What causes a serious problem, when Farenheit 9/11, film with VERY strong purpose but done without artistic considerations can’t support any idea of competition. For this reason it would have undoubtedly be better for this screening to be opened to maximum of witnesses, rather than to a pseudo-elite critical dressed in tuxedos, which will not fail to orate on a film which can’t be commented for now, would be this only by its unfinished aspect, the end of this story being held live any day, between the Irak situation and the result of the next American presidential elections.

Till next,

Grozilla

and now for Celia...

Dear Harry,

I don't know if you had any reports from Cannes this year, but I just felt that I had to send you one about Michael Moore being at the Festival.

Michael Moore latest documentary, called Fahrenheit 9/11 has been selected in the Official Competition. He arrived in Cannes Saturday and already everyone talked about him : there has been protestations among the workers at some of the most famous palaces and Michael Moore came to talk to the protesters in front of his own hotel.

Yesterday, he was giving a one-on-one interview. Peter Bart, Variety editor was his host. The interview was to take place on the terrace of a private beach along the Croisette.

I arrived half an hour before and the queue was already very long. They began to let people get in. When there were five persons in front of me, they said it was full, but happily, they gave twenty more people the authorization to get in. We hadn't got a seat but we were really close to Michael Moore. The audience was mostly American or British people, there maybe only four or five French like me and a few others from various nationalities.

Michael Moore arrived, looking not really at ease.

The first questions were about this whole distribution and production business : Moore explained that, first, Icon was producing but that Mel Gibson got pressures from some persons from the White House.

So, Miramax ended up producing the doc. But, after a screening for Miramax business heads, the relationships went colder, till a few days ago when the situation got really confused. Moore said his doc was to be distributed all over the nations present in Cannes except for three countries : Taiwan, Hong-Kong and... the USA !

Moore went on talking about his motivations, explaining himself as a true patriot, horrified by what happens in America which he finds totally opposed to the principles of this nation, saying that it was not in the US principles to go and invade countries. He was cheerfully applaused, many times during the interview.

He the explained himself about his speech at the Oscars, doing a great impression of himself and then a great impression of all these A-Lists actors. He told how, as he walking down the aisle, everyone was cheering "Go Michael ! Go ! Get 'em"... adding "Cause I won't do it myself !"

He proved himself, during this interview, as a deeply concerned yet funny man. But he couldn't help saying he was king of worried about the screening.

So what was all this ado about ? I finally discovered it today. Everyone knew it would be very difficult to get the tickets. So I woke up at 5 am ! And believe me, it was hard to do, cause I went to bed at 2 am, having attended the Kill Bill 2 Gala screening (which was great !).

The theatre was more than full. Half of the people were American, but a lot of us were French. He was warmly applaused when he came in. Then the doc began.

The doc begins with the election day, stressing the point that Gore had won, until Fox News told the contrary.

The documentary goes from the investiture and the riots that happened that day, to the first months of "work" for Bush. Pretty soon we get to September 11. Moore made the choice not to show the images of the tower, but left a black screen, with only the noises. When there finally are images : it's the faces of people in the streets.

Moore shows what was Bush doing when he get the news (sitting in a school, reading a child book) and how he stayed there, doing nothing, for several minutes. The critic to the man is obvious and violently funny. The audience in the theatre was laughing and cheering.

Moore illustrates then his point : the relationships between Saudians families and the Bush family, all linked through weapons and oil firms. Moore uses a fragmented chronology and flash-backs to prove the manipulations and the contradictions in speeches.

Very soon, Moore explains that the real goal was Iraq though Afghanistan was attacked first.

Then begins the second part of the doc : about war.

Moore demonstrates, with the help of a psychiatrist and of archives documents, how the opinion and American people were manipulated, putting an emphasis about the Patriot Act.

Moore went to Baghdad, where he shot soldiers, speaking freely, where he just the people and how they are treated by American troops. He creates a "décalage" between what is said by some soldiers and by what he shows of the war : civilians being killed or arrested.

His purpose is clear : he doesn't put the blame on the troops, but on their ignorance, their violence and on the manipulators.

We also follows with him the story of Lila, who is an ordinary family mother from Flint, Michigan. We follow her in time : her pride that her kid is a soldier, like many in her family before, then the first doubts of Lila, to, eventually, her son's death and her trip to Washington, while, in the meantime, Moore shows himself trying to recruit, unsuccesfully the senators' kids to go to war in Iraq.

The doc ends with a George Orwell quotation about war and politics. Moore closes his doc with a final commentary, which you can't really calls optimistic.

He got the biggest standing ovation I ever saw in Cannes. Most people were red-eyed because it was so moving. But everyone stood and applauded, and cheered for at least 15 minutes.

When he went down the steps, the music being played was John Lennon's Imagine. A beautiful choice for a beautiful doc.

Celia


-HollywoodBob

[Hagrid442]

Moore's film wins the Palme d'or at Cannes (http://channels.aimtoday.com/movies/story.jsp?idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040522%2F1614520018.htm&sc=1402&photoid=20040522CAN115)


'Fahrenheit 9/11' Wins Cannes' Top Prize



CANNES, France (AP) - American filmmaker Michael Moore's ``Fahrenheit 9/11,'' a scathing indictment of White House actions after the Sept. 11 attacks, won the top prize Saturday at the Cannes Film Festival.

``Fahrenheit 9/11'' was the first documentary to win Cannes' prestigious Palme d'Or since Jacques Cousteau's and Louis Malle's ``The Silent World'' in 1956.

``What have you done? I'm completely overwhelmed by this. Merci,'' Moore said after getting a standing ovation from the Cannes crowd.

The grand prize, the festival's second-place honor, went to South Korean filmmaker Park Chan-wook's ``Old Boy,'' a blood-soaked thriller about a man out for revenge after years of inexplicable imprisonment.


Moore was momentarily flabbergasted when he took the stage to accept the award, a big difference from his fiery speech against President Bush after winning the best-documentary Academy Award for 2002's ``Bowling for Columbine.''


``You have to understand, the last time I was on an awards stage, in Hollywood, all hell broke loose,'' Moore said.


The best-actress award went to Maggie Cheung for her role in ``Clean'' as a junkie trying to straighten out her life and regain custody of her young son after her rock-star boyfriend dies of a drug overdose.


Fourteen-year-old Yagira Yuuya was named best actor for the Japanese film ``Nobody Knows,'' in which he plays the eldest of four sibling raised in isolation, who must take charge of the family when their mother leaves.


The directing and writing prizes went to French filmmakers. Tony Gatlif won the directing honor for ``Exiles,'' his road-trip about a couple on a sensual journey from France to Algeria.


Agnes Jaoui and her romantic partner, Jean-Pierre Bacri, won the screenplay award for ``Look at Me,'' their study in self-image centering on an overweight young woman who feels neglected by loved ones. Jaoui and Bacri also co-star.


``Fahrenheit 9/11'' won the top award at a festival that sharply divided Cannes moviegoers, who found a solid crop of good movies among the 19 entries in the festival's main competition but no great ones that rose to front-runner status.


While ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' was well-received by Cannes audiences, many critics felt it was inferior to Moore's Academy Award-winning documentary ``Bowling for Columbine,'' which earned him a special prize at Cannes in 2002.


Some critics speculated that if ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' won the top prize, it would be more for the film's politics than its cinematic value.


With Moore's customary blend of humor and horror, ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' accuses the Bush camp of stealing the 2000 election, overlooking terrorism warnings before Sept. 11 and fanning fears of more attacks to secure Americans' support for the Iraq war.


Moore appears on-screen far less in ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' than in ``Bowling for Columbine'' or his other documentaries. The film relies largely on interviews, footage of U.S. soldiers and war victims in Iraq, and archival footage of Bush.


Just back in Cannes after his daughter's college graduation in the United States, Moore dedicated the award to ``my daughter and to all the children in America and Iraq and throughout the world who suffered through our actions.''


``Fahrenheit 9/11'' made waves in the weeks leading up to Cannes after the Walt Disney Co. refused to let subsidiary Miramax release the film in the United States because of its political content. Miramax bosses Harvey and Bob Weinstein are negotiating to buy back the film and find another distributor, with hopes of landing it in theaters by Fourth of July weekend.


Moore said after the ceremony that he expected right-wing media outlets in the United States to characterize his prize as an award from the French, whose government opposed the U.S.-led war on Iraq. He noted that the nine-person Cannes jury that awarded prizes had only one French member and four Americans, including jury president Quentin Tarantino and actress Kathleen Turner.


Many Americans now realize the French are ``good friends of America who tried to do the right thing and tell us this was the wrong road,'' Moore said. ``We owe the people of this country an apology for the way they were debased and treated in our media.''


Thai director Apichatpong Weerasethakul's ``Tropical Malady'' - widely regarded by Cannes audiences as a snoozer for its elongated scenes of a man wandering a jungle alone, with no dialogue - won the festival's third-place jury prize.


Another jury prize went to Irma P. Hall for her role as an elderly Southern woman who foils a casino robbery in the Coen brothers' crime comedy ``The Ladykillers,'' starring Tom Hanks as the heist's ringleader.


Keren Yedaya's ``Or,'' about a Tel Aviv prostitute in failing health and her teenage daughter, won the Golden Camera award for best film by a first-time director. The U.S.-born Yedaya, who grew up in Israel, gives lectures about the problems of prostitution for government officials and mental-health professionals.


Earlier Saturday, Senegalese filmmaker Ousmane Sembene's ``Moolaade,'' an examination of the ritual of female circumcision that earned rave reviews, won the top prize in a secondary Cannes competition called ``Un Certain Regard.''


The 12-day festival's closing film - ``De-Lovely,'' Kevin Kline's musical biography of Cole Porter - screened immediately after the awards. Kline and co-star Ashley Judd then hosted a beach concert featuring Sheryl Crow, Alanis Morissette, Natalie Cole and other singers from ``De-Lovely'' performing Porter tunes.


The festival was to wrap up Sunday with encore screenings of award winners and other key movies that played the festival, including a combined, four-hour version of Tarantino's two ``Kill Bill'' installments.


I hope the film got the award based on its merits. However, I have a sneaky feeling it didn't. Perhaps there is a good message to this movie, but Michael Moore has little credibility.

[Sineed]

I hope the film got the award based on its merits. However, I have a sneaky feeling it didn't. Perhaps there is a good message to this movie, but Michael Moore has little credibility.

How do you figure that?? Like I said earlier on this thread, Mike sometimes oversimplifies complex issues for the sake of an easy joke, but his larger points are harder to refute.

I can't speak to Mike's credibility in his own country, but he has lots of credibility here in Canada, and obviously in France, too. Note that a Canadian company has agreed to distribute his film after Miramax refused. How odd that a man whose last film won an Academy award and was the largest grossing documentary of all time should have to go to a foreign country to find a distributor for his latest film.

Thought I'd bump this thread because of the latest development. I'll let Mikey explain it:

"A Republican PR firm has formed a fake grassroots front group called "Move America Forward" to harass and intimidate theater owners into not showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."
As of this morning, a little over 500 theaters have agreed to show the movie beginning next Friday, June 25. There are three national/regional theater chains who, as of today, have not booked the movie in their theaters. One theater owner in Illinois has reported receiving death threats." --Michael Moore, June 18, 2004.

[HollywoodBob]

How do you figure that?? Like I said earlier on this thread, Mike sometimes oversimplifies complex issues for the sake of an easy joke, but his larger points are harder to refute.If his facts weren't accurate he would have been sued a hundred times over for slander and libel.

I can't speak to Mike's credibility in his own country, but he has lots of credibility here in Canada, and obviously in France, too. Note that a Canadian company has agreed to distribute his film after Miramax refused. How odd that a man whose last film won an Academy award and was the largest grossing documentary of all time should have to go to a foreign country to find a distributor for his latest film.Just to clarify, Disney refused to distribute it not Miramax. In the end Miramax bought the rights to the film away from Disney in order to seek out alternate distribution.

Thought I'd bump this thread because of the latest development. I'll let Mikey explain it:

"A Republican PR firm has formed a fake grassroots front group called "Move America Forward" to harass and intimidate theater owners into not showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."
As of this morning, a little over 500 theaters have agreed to show the movie beginning next Friday, June 25. There are three national/regional theater chains who, as of today, have not booked the movie in their theaters. One theater owner in Illinois has reported receiving death threats." --Michael Moore, June 18, 2004. I'm extremely annoyed about this, as of this morning I will have to to drive an hour and a half to see this movie, and it's one that I've been looking forward to for some time. With luck my local theater will pick it up by the 25th. I doubt it though.

-HollywoodBob

[Sineed]

Hmm ... I'm no expert in corporate structures, but I thought Miramax was the adult wing of Disney. Or something like that.

You'd think the bottom line would be the most important. If it makes money, maybe you won't have to drive an hour and a half.

And where are all the flag-wavers? Sean Hannity (sp?), Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter, et al, are always quick to jump on anything or anybody they perceive as un-American. So what's more un-American than the suppression of free speech? Whatever happened to defending to the death the right of anybody to say anything, even if you disagree with what they are saying?

[Hagrid442]

"A Republican PR firm has formed a fake grassroots front group called "Move America Forward" to harass and intimidate theater owners into not showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."
As of this morning, a little over 500 theaters have agreed to show the movie beginning next Friday, June 25. There are three national/regional theater chains who, as of today, have not booked the movie in their theaters. One theater owner in Illinois has reported receiving death threats." --Michael Moore, June 18, 2004.

Interesting. How... unAmerican. Are these "Americans" afraid that Michael Moore says something bad about their hero, George W. Bush? I think there's a word that describes such people. Fascists.


Roger Ebert's feeling about Moore are much like mine (http://www.suntimes.com/output/eb-feature/cst-ftr-moore18.html)


'9/11': Just the facts?

June 18, 2004

BY ROGER EBERT FILM CRITIC


A reader writes:

"In your articles discussing Michael Moore's film 'Fahrenheit 9/11,' you call it a documentary. I always thought of documentaries as presenting facts objectively without editorializing. While I have enjoyed many of Mr. Moore's films, I don't think they fit the definition of a documentary."

That's where you're wrong. Most documentaries, especially the best ones, have an opinion and argue for it. Even those that pretend to be objective reflect the filmmaker's point of view. Moviegoers should observe the bias, take it into account and decide if the film supports it or not.

Michael Moore is a liberal activist. He is the first to say so. He is alarmed by the prospect of a second term for George W. Bush, and made "Fahrenheit 9/11" for the purpose of persuading people to vote against him.

That is all perfectly clear, and yet in the days before the film opens June 25, there'll be bountiful reports by commentators who are shocked! shocked! that Moore's film is partisan. "He doesn't tell both sides," we'll hear, especially on Fox News, which is so famous for telling both sides.

The wise French director Godard once said, "The way to criticize a film is to make another film." That there is not a pro-Bush documentary available right now I am powerless to explain. Surely, however, the Republican National Convention will open with such a documentary, which will position Bush comfortably between Ronald Reagan and God. The Democratic convention will have a wondrous film about John Kerry. Anyone who thinks one of these documentaries is "presenting facts objectively without editorializing" should look at the other one.

The pitfall for Moore is not subjectivity, 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.

Now comes "Fahrenheit 9/11," floating on an enormous wave of advance publicity. It inspired a battle of the titans between Disney's Michael Eisner and Miramax's Harvey Weinstein. It won the Palme d'Or at the Cannes Film Festival. It has been rated R by the MPAA, and former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo has signed up as Moore's lawyer, to challenge the rating. The conservative group Move America Forward, which successfully bounced the mildly critical biopic "The Reagans" off CBS and onto cable, has launched a campaign to discourage theaters from showing "Fahrenheit 9/11."

The campaign will amount to nothing and disgraces Move America Forward by showing it trying to suppress disagreement instead of engaging it. The R rating may stand; there is a real beheading in the film, and only fictional beheadings get the PG-13. Disney and Miramax will survive.

Moore's real test will come on the issue of accuracy. He can say whatever he likes about Bush, as long as his facts are straight. Having seen the film twice, I saw nothing that raised a flag for me, and I haven't heard of any major inaccuracies. When Moore was questioned about his claim that Bush unwisely lingered for six or seven minutes in that Florida classroom after learning of the World Trade Center attacks, Moore was able to reply with a video of Bush doing exactly that.

I agree with Moore that the presidency of George W. Bush has been a disaster for America. In writing that, I expect to get the usual complaints that movie critics should keep their political opinions to themselves. But opinions are my stock in trade, and is it not more honest to declare my politics than to conceal them? I agree with Moore, and because I do, I hope "Fahrenheit 9/11" proves to be as accurate as it seems.

[Chrysalis]

Now I'm really interested. I wonder when it is being released here. When it is I'll convince my dad into taking me.:D

I wanted to watch Bowling For Columbine for a school project about gun violence in schools but I didn't have the time.:(

I don't doubt, however, that Michael Moore does get his facts right, because I'm sure the Republicans are just waiting to jump on an opportunity to sue the hell out of him. The fact that they're merely uttering empty threats is proof that at the core of his movies lies truth.:)

[Kirsten]

I think the most important thing about Moore's work is that people discuss it. It is so easy for people with their busy lives to just get on with their life and not think about issues like this. Whether you agree with his methods or his statements or not, it's great that people are debating the issues, and for that alone he is to be congratulated.

[Mundungus Fletc]

If the movie is released in Britain (there's no release date as far as I know) you can be absolutely certain he hasn't libelled anyone. The libel laws here are ferocious. I wouldn't mind if someone libelled me; I could do with the huge wadges of cash I'd get. Both "Dumb White Men" and "Dude Where's My Country" have been published here with not a hint of litigation on the way. I found them fascinating but apart from the Bush - Bin Laden links there was nothing I hadn't already read in the Press.

[Sineed]

I think maybe Americans get a skewed perspective on Mike because of far-right media commentators. He isn't really all that radical. He's pro-gun, f'r instance. He's against unfettered free-market capitalism, as most people in N. America are, but he's not anti-business. He's not a communist or an anarchist.

Are these "Americans" afraid that Michael Moore says something bad about their hero, George W. Bush? I think there's a word that describes such people. Fascists.

Exactly my point, Hagrid. Though the amusing part about all the fuss they're making is it's going to back-fire on them. Like Savoy Truffle illustrates, more people are going to want to see the movie. Think of all those misguided prudes in the sixties who banned The Catcher in the Rye from schools, thereby guaranteeing that every teenager in North America would read it.

[Hagrid442]

I know. I was thinking that too. Once you tell people something is "verboten", then of course they have to see/do it!

Think of all those misguided prudes in the sixties who banned The Catcher in the Rye from schools, thereby guaranteeing that every teenager in North America would read it.

I absolutely hated that book! LOL. :rotfl: However, I would never ban it. The American Library Association says that it's amongst one of the most challenged books at libraries. That means that many people write in to complain that book is in the library and they try to get the library to drop that book. Harry Potter is also high on this list.

Argh! I was going to provide a link... but the ALA site is down or something?

Alright. This looks decent (http://links.forbiddenlibrary.com/)

[Chrysalis]

Scanning the list of most frequently banned books, I can't help but wonder why anyone would want to ban Huckleberry Finn or James And The Giant Peach? And I suppose books that touch on issues of gender and race offend some sensitive people as well.:rolleyes:

And, no matter how much you hate Michael Moore, you simply can't advocate banning him. Because, there's a little something called Freedom of Expression, one that America prides itself upon. If you don't like it, don't watch the movie. Just don't prevent others from doing so.

[Dagmar]

FYI... Ray Bradburry the author of "Farenheit 451", is upset with Michael Moore for ripping him off. He said that he called Moore's people over six months ago to keep him from using his title and no one called him back. Then about a month ago he said that Michael Moore finally called him and said it was too late he couldn't undo it. Bradbury doesn't want to sue and says that he wants to work it out like gentlemen.
I certainly hope he means to put Moore in a headlock and pile drive him into the dirt. :D

[Snapes_lovr]

I don't believe in banning Michael Moore although I'd love to beat him with a stick if I ever met the man. He takes his opinion and makes a movie around it. All the while skewing the facts to make all the conservatives in the world look like war monggering(sp) money grubing jerks. I hate his tactics and sometime I wonder if he will bring on an apocolyps.

[Bhodi]

FYI... Ray Bradburry the author of "Farenheit 451", is upset with Michael Moore for ripping him off. He said that he called Moore's people over six months ago to keep him from using his title and no one called him back. Then about a month ago he said that Michael Moore finally called him and said it was too late he couldn't undo it. Bradbury doesn't want to sue and says that he wants to work it out like gentlemen.
I certainly hope he means to put Moore in a headlock and pile drive him into the dirt.

Frankly, if he called Moore months ago about the issue and Moore ignored it until the eleventh hour (a blatantly passive-aggressive tactic), I think Bradbury should sue.

One problem I have with Michael Moore is the fact that he seems to have grown too big for his britches (in a figurative sense) now that he's 'famous'. He's become a member of the wealthy elite, who feel that they can do whatever they want however they want without concern for others...

Ray Bradbury would rather not have me rip off the title of his most famous work for my new movie? So what... Screw Bradbury! The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences has requested that Oscar winners not make political statements during the Academy Awards gala because time is limited and the evening is supposed to be a celebration of film, not a political rally? Who cares... Screw the Academy! I'm Michael Moore, d@mnit! And I'll do things my way, everyone else be d@mned!

Moore is quite talented, but he's also quite arrogant, self-absorbed/egomaniacal and hypocritical.

[Kirsten]

I don't believe in banning Michael Moore although I'd love to beat him with a stick if I ever met the man. He takes his opinion and makes a movie around it. All the while skewing the facts to make all the conservatives in the world look like war monggering(sp) money grubing jerks. I hate his tactics and sometime I wonder if he will bring on an apocolyps.
How can you ban Michael Moore?

[Ragdrazi]

Your post sounds kind of insane there Snapes. You cannot honestly belive that Moore is going to open the gates of hell. . . can you. . . ? . . .

He takes his opinion and makes a movie around it. And that is perfectly acceptable in this kind of film.

In any case, are you guys honestly telling me that Bradbury is upset over Moore's use of the word Fahrenheit? Does Bradbury feel he owns the word Fahrenheit? Should the estate of a certain Mr. Fahrenheit sue Bradbury?

Anyway, as far as Moore is concerned, he has used obscuring of fact in the past. It seems like he's always been more concerned with Michael Moore then with fact, and I hate him for that. But there is always fact there. A good example would be the missile scene from Bowling for Columbine. Those missiles were not nuclear missiles. That plaint did not produce weapon systems. -- I mean, at that time. It has in the resent past, and is now back to producing weapons, though not nuclear. But the point remains, doesn't it. Littleton has been supported, and supported well, by weapon sales. Telling the truth wouldn't have made it as cool a movie, though, so. . .

Anyway, as far as this movie is concerned. . . Moore definitely has his facts straight this time, and the reason is pretty obvious. He didn't do any of the research himself. Apparently, all Moore has done in this film is regurgitate the well researched case against Bush that's been floating around the Left for about a year now, with pictures in front of it.

EDIT: Oh, and as far as those people upset at his speech at the Oscars. . . Um. . . It wasn’t the time or place? Don’t the Oscars take place in America? Are they some no free speech zone? No? Yes? What? What???

[Snapes_lovr]

Originally posted by: Kristen
How can you ban Michael Moore?

Its as easy as sending him on a nice journey to the middle east and sticking him in a spider hole; where he belongs.

Originally posted by: Ragdrazi
Your post sounds kind of insane there Snapes. You cannot honestly belive that Moore is going to open the gates of hell. . . can you. . . ? . . .

Well, no I don't necissarily believe that Moore will open the gates of hell. But if the ungrateful man continues his dealings with Satan then yes I believe he will.

[Ragdrazi]

How sad and ridiculous.

[Snapes_lovr]

Ragdrazi, if you have not yet realized...I use alot of sarcasm in my discussions so you can't always take me seriously. :)

[Snapes_lovr]

And you have the nerve to call me insane. :lol:

[Ragdrazi]

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-6/749818/untitled.JPG


herfenaperkins?

[Snapes_lovr]

Anyway...enough of this. Proceed with the discussion.

Moore's films are not documentaries...they are films yes, but not factual in any way shape or form.

[HollywoodBob]

If his movies aren't documentaries, then anything that is shown on FOX News isn't news. :p

-HollywoodBob

[Snapes_lovr]

Ho ho ho...I would think that fox news is one of the most straight shooting networks out there. CNN is the catastrophy news network and no one watches MSNBC. At least they actually do reporting on Fox insteed of poluting the minds of their viewers with propaganda. :p

[Hagrid442]

Ho ho ho...I would think that fox news is one of the most straight shooting networks out there. CNN is the catastrophy news network and no one watches MSNBC. At least they actually do reporting on Fox insteed of poluting the minds of their viewers with propaganda. :p

That must be why 80% of people that viewed FOX News as their primary "news" source had at least one of these misconceptions:

1)WMD had been found in Iraq.
2)The world approved of our intervention in Iraq
3)Saddam and al-Qaeda were linked in involvement in regards to 9/11

[Ragdrazi]

Ho ho ho...I would think that fox news is one of the most straight shooting networks out there. Sarcasm again? (Don’t make me whip out the anti-Fox News study. . . Edit. . . the one that just got talked about. . . yeah. . .)

In any case, saying that Moore's films are not factual in any way shape or form is a gross mischaracterization. Many of the facts presented there in are completely accurate. It's when Moore tries to "document" things that he gets himself into trouble. Even then he still has a basis in some very alarming fact. He just works off of it, making it sexier and shinier. . . He seems to do these things when the undoctored truth would have done just as well.

[The Forsaken]

Michael Moore is a bit biased, to say the least, but I still cant wait to see Fahrentheit 9/11 Friday. As one reviewer put it Moore isn't making propaganda so much as affirming the faith of liberal Americans. No George Bush supporter is going to watch Fahrenheit 9/11 with the intention of converting to liberalism, just as no liberal who watches Fox News watches to become an ultra right conservative. I'll have to actual see Fahrenheit to mkae more of a commen though.

[Snapes_lovr]

Fox news isn't an ultra right conservative network...have you ever watched Hannity and Colmes?

[The Forsaken]

While I concede Hannity and colmes try watching Bill O' Reilly and telling me Fox doesnt have ultra conservatism cornered

[Potter13]

Anyone here heard anything about the law suite against him? I know it is over the title of one of his newer things, but I did not know if there was anything more to it that that.

[Ragdrazi]

Hannity and Colmes? You are being sarcastic, arn't you.

. . . are not you. . . why is one grammatically ok, but not the other. . .

[Magical_Me]

The only Michael Moore I want to listen to is the news reporter from Frontline. Rob Sitch is hilarious.

[Hagrid442]

Hannity and Colmes? You are being sarcastic, arn't you.

. . . are not you. . . why is one grammatically ok, but not the other. . .

Colmes is a big time milquetoast. He's the kind of "liberal" that conservatives like because he doesn't stand up for himself. He's just kinda... there.

Makes it easy when you have a loud-mouth Hannity.

[Bhodi]

In any case, are you guys honestly telling me that Bradbury is upset over Moore's use of the word Fahrenheit? Does Bradbury feel he owns the word Fahrenheit?

Um, it's the manner and context of use, I imagine, that bothers Bradbury. It's quite obvious from the catch phrase accompanying the film ("the temperature at which freedom burns") that Moore lifted Bradbury's title. The problem with this is that it represents a probable violation of copyright/intellectual property law... Which is why Bradbury is a bit miffed (truly and honestly -- we're really not messin' with ya here). Actually, I imagine he's a bit more p'ed off because it seems he made some attempts to contact Moore well in advance of the movie release to discuss the issue, yet Moore ignored him.

EDIT: Oh, and as far as those people upset at his speech at the Oscars. . . Um. . . It wasn’t the time or place? Don’t the Oscars take place in America? Are they some no free speech zone? No? Yes? What? What???

No, it wasn't the time or place -- according to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences and the network airing the Oscars... You know, the folks who actually throw the shindig, award the Oscars and televise it? They requested that honorees focus on the purpose of the gala (celebrating the art of film, and the accomplishments of the night's honorees) rather than politics -- not the government. But Moore just decided, "Screw my peers! I can do whatever I want to! I'm Michael Moore!"

Personally, I wasn't upset about what he said, and couldn't care less about the fact that he said it, or about when and where he said it. I just think the fact that he ignored the specific request made by his peers (the Academy) and the network televising the event says quite a bit about MM's overinflated ego.

[Hagrid442]

I agree on both accounts, Bhodi. It was rather poor manners to not even talk to Bradbury about the title. If Moore treated him like a human being, I'm sure Bradbury would have cheerfully let him use that title. However, now there will be some sour grapes.

As for the Oscar's outburst, I agreed with what he said, but that wasn't the time nor place to say it. He merely made himself look like a fool there.

[Ragdrazi]

The problem with this is that it represents a probable violation of copyright/intellectual property law...Which is why Bradbury is a bit miffed (truly and honestly -- we're really not messin' with ya here). I’ll have to take your word for that. . . though I can see two problems. First of all, Bradbury would have to convince a judge that people are going to be confused into thinking this film was his product, and with all the buzz around Moore, I don’t see that as happening. Second, he didn’t lift the title, he altered the wording. Weither or not the alteration was significant is debatable, but it sounds a lot different to me then “Fair and Balanced” does to “Fair and Balanced," if you recall that case. . .No, it wasn't the time or place -- according to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences and the network airing the Oscars... You know, the folks who actually throw the shindig, award the Oscars and televise it? Those folks who live in America. America, where’s there’s supposed to be freedom of speech. Yeah, uh huh. I know those people. Go on. They requested that honorees focus on the purpose of the gala (celebrating the art of film, and the accomplishments of the night's honorees) rather than politics -- not the government. But Moore just decided, "Screw my peers! I can do whatever I want to! I'm Michael Moore!" Look. . . not to defend Michael Moore too much, but I can tell you, as a Leftist, you are always trying to get your message out. You think this is an example of Moore’s ego, and maybe it was. But I can tell you that I do not have an ego, and in his place I would have said a lot worse. The thing is about people passionate about politics (including myself) is they are always looking for a soap box. Not only that, the biggest soap box they can get themselves on. And it’s not like this was the first time someone stood on it. This year, the man who made “Fog of War” spoke out against American foreign policy. Other people have stood up in years past. The Academy doesn’t like it. . . but it’s almost a tradition.

[Chrysalis]

I don't believe in banning Michael Moore although I'd love to beat him with a stick if I ever met the man. He takes his opinion and makes a movie around it. All the while skewing the facts to make all the conservatives in the world look like war monggering(sp) money grubing jerks. I hate his tactics and sometime I wonder if he will bring on an apocolyps.

I know a lot of people who would love to do the same to Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh and their ilk.

[Midnightsfire]

Hannity and Colmes? You are being sarcastic, arn't you.

. . . are not you. . . why is one grammatically ok, but not the other. . .Aye...

This was posted in amother thread: The false balance of Hannity & Colmes (http://www.fair.org/extra/0311/hannity-colmes.html) as well as The Most Biased Name in News (http://www.fair.org/extra/0108/fox-main.html).

About the Bradbury...thing.

I find it ironic that the book was about censorship. But Moore seems to have done his homework on copyrights (http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html).

A month old, but here ya go: Moore Film Title Angers Author Bradbury (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=493&e=21&u=/ap/20040619/ap_en_mo/bradbury_fahrenheit_911_14)

[Bhodi]

I’ll have to take your word for that. . . though I can see two problems. First of all, Bradbury would have to convince a judge that people are going to be confused into thinking this film was his product, and with all the buzz around Moore, I don’t see that as happening. Second, he didn’t lift the title, he altered the wording.

Good points... Doing some digging into the law, it seems Bradbury might have less of a case than I originally thought (of course, I'm not a lawyer, and didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night)... His complaint [if he has any] might have to fall under trademark law...

but it sounds a lot different to me then “Fair and Balanced” does to “Fair and Balanced," if you recall that case

I haven't studied copyright law or trademark law closely, but would imagine that there is a public domain issue with the phrase "fair and balanced."

Those folks who live in America. America, where’s there’s supposed to be freedom of speech. Yeah, uh huh. I know those people. Go on.

And the fact that all these folks live in America is significant how? The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences is not the government... As a private entity that represents the reason for the existence of the Academy Awards in the first place (and, thus, for the televised Oscars gala), that organizes and sponsors the annual event, and that issues invitations to the [private] gala, the Academy is well within its rights to make a request of participants that they restrict their speech on certain issues...

Look, Ragdrazi... This is very simple... Michael Moore's peers -- you know, his friends and coworkers -- made a specific request regarding political statements, and he thumbed his nose at them... Does he have the freedom to do so? Of course he does... As you have so aptly pointed out, he was in America -- a country where folks are able to freely voice their opinions... But just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't mean you should always do it...

Perhaps a better course of action for MM in the situation would have been to skip the Academy Awards and make a public statement about how he disagreed with the Academy and what he might say were he able to speak freely as an Oscar winner... Such a move would have demonstrated more tact, and might have been a heck of a lot more effective from the standpoint of generating media attention to MMs views. An Oscar winner skipping the Academy Awards gala would be huge news! How's that for a soapbox?

And it’s not like this was the first time someone stood on it.

Of course not! Which was the whole reason why [i]the Academy made their specific request regarding political speeches... Their point? This is supposed to be a night of celebration of accomplishments within the film industry, not a political rally...

You think this is an example of Moore’s ego, and maybe it was. But I can tell you that I do not have an ego, and in his place I would have said a lot worse. The thing is about people passionate about politics (including myself) is they are always looking for a soap box. Not only that, the biggest soap box they can get themselves on.

I've got news for you, Ragdrazi... We've all got egos! And we all like to feed/flex them (some, clearly, more than others)! I reiterate -- these are both textbook examples of Michael Moore feeding/flexing his ego... Nothing more, nothing less... That's my whole point... Like I said, I think Moore is quite talented, and I often enjoy his work... I also acknowledge that he's quite an egomaniacal *****...

Basically, both of these situations boil down to matters of simple etiquette and respect (for the Academy/MMs peers and for a highly respected author who is attempting to contact MM with concerns about a potential misuse of the title of his masterpiece [in the "Fahrenheit 9/11" controversy])... Through his actions, MM has demonstrated he has neither... It seems he's too self-absorbed to give [i]anyone a little respect -- even a science fiction author whose work MMs handlers have said he 'respects very highly'... Apparently not, since he can't even answer a phone call from said author...

[Midnightsfire]

Just a quick post:

‘Fahrenheit 9/11’ ban?
Ads for Moore’s movie could be stopped on July 30 (http://www.thehill.com/news/062404/moore.aspx)

[The Forsaken]

Michael Moore isnt the first winner to blast a President at the awards. The same night before Moore spoke Best Supporting Actor winner Chris Cooper opened the evening by blasting the President for militant actions. Hollywood has been one of the more outspoken liberal communities since the movie industry began and if a winner wishes to speak out the Oscars are an acceptable place to me.

[Queen of Wise]

In my economics class we watched "Roger and Me", and part of "Bowling for Columbine", Michael Moore makes great documentaries, and he lets the people see the truth. Im looking forward to seeing Fahrenheit 911.

[brnsy019]

I think that he is an amazing director and author. But, when reading and watching his work you must see both sides of the argument. Something that truly made me mad about Bowling for Columbine was that the mall Great Lakes Crossing that he went to he described it as the "white mans meca." Great Lakes Crossing mall is not the "white mans meca" I can not even express how false of a statement this is. I live in that area and frequent that mall and it is so diverse. So, that just bugged me a little. Other than that I really enjoy his movies and I find him hysterical.

[John Quint]

I'll just say this and leave you to make your own conclusions: Michael Moore originally stated his latest "creation" was set to be a factual account of what transpired with President G.W. Bush in the days surrounding the attacks of September 11th. This lasted until the 9/11 Commission's Report came out and found almost half of this movie is based on factualy inaccurate material. The movie was then billed as a "editorial" view of what transpired, now it's being billed as something more along the lines of a "political cartoon." These aren't changes folks like Fox News have made, we're talking people like Moore himself and/or the New York Times.

Does he have the right to make this movie? Yup.

However, he doesn't have the right to claim it is non-fiction when in fact it only contains a few "loose facts" surrounded by unfounded supposition.

Oh, and in regards to Fox News, they are not "ultra conservatism cornered". They blast both sides of the isle and you know what, if you think their ultra conservative because when they have debates the "right" side of the isle is represented by someone who actually knows what they're talking about...can't help you there. If they are so bad, makes me wonder how this network who became the number one cable news network surpassed CNN...who was actually available on twice as many TV sets than Fox.

[Snapes_lovr]

Originally posted by: The Forsaken
While I concede Hannity and colmes try watching Bill O' Reilly and telling me Fox doesnt have ultra conservatism cornered

Although many people assume that O'Reilly is a crazy right winger...he does posses alot of liberal views. Plus he investigates instead of relying on what the rest of the world says is true.

Originally posted by: Hagrid442
Colmes is a big time milquetoast. He's the kind of "liberal" that conservatives like because he doesn't stand up for himself. He's just kinda... there.

Makes it easy when you have a loud-mouth Hannity.

Colmes is actually quite the firecracker. He can get right in the face of many conservative guests. Plus the show has both libreral and conservative guests.

Originally posted by: Ragdrazi
This year, the man who made “Fog of War” spoke out against American foreign policy. Other people have stood up in years past. The Academy doesn’t like it. . . but it’s almost a tradition.


What I find interesting about these raving directors is how people respond. You have all the fake people (actors) aplauding and nodding their heads. But the real people in the back are booing and looking quite irrate.

[Midnightsfire]

Well...

Obviously posting links that rebut the argument about Fox and the media was a waste... (Of course, if one is disagreeing with the articles in question, well, that's different then.)

However, we do have a thread dealing with the subject, so I'll just leave it at that.

The Media (http://cosforums.com/showthread.php?t=20241) thread.

[Ragdrazi]

Alright. A lot to respond to. Let’s get started.

(of course, I'm not a lawyer, and didn't even stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night)... His complaint [if he has any] might have to fall under trademark law... I don’t get it. Anyway, trademarks only apply to logos so. . . But take heart, I’m no lawyer either. I could be wrong.But just because you have the freedom to do something doesn't mean you should always do it... So you believe in. . . limited liberty. . . Such a move would have demonstrated more tact, and [I would argue] might have been a heck of a lot more effective from the standpoint of generating media attention to MMs views. Tact is not a Leftist’s strong suit. Never has been, never will be. A Leftist sees him or herself as fighting against an institutionalized evil status quo. In such a fight tact is not helpful. An Oscar winner skipping the Academy Awards gala would be huge news! How's that for a soapbox? First of all, the news wouldn’t be nearly as big as the news he got for doing it. You would get a two second blurb saying he didn’t show up, and then a two second shot of him saying “I don’t agree with their don’t talk about politics policy.” Maybe he might get two words to say about Bush but I doubt it. Of course not! Which was the whole reason why the Academy made their specific request regarding political speeches... Their point? This is supposed to be a night of celebration of accomplishments within the film industry, not a political rally... Sad that they hate such a colorful tradition then. I've got news for you, Ragdrazi... We've all got egos! Wow! I’m glad you are able to speak for every single one of us! As for myself I actually have somewhat of a negative opinion of myself, but. . . No no no! I have an ego! Wow! That was better then therapy. Thank you! I reiterate -- these are both textbook examples of Michael Moore feeding/flexing his ego... Amazing! And you can speak for Moore too! Wow! You even have a text book on him!!! Nothing more, nothing less... That's my whole point... Like I said, I think Moore is quite talented, and I often enjoy his work... I also acknowledge that he's quite an egomaniacal *****... The. . . b word? Smarminess. Look. I’m just trying to tell you this is how we lefty types operate. We’re constantly working to get our message out as loudly and as clearly as possible. You get up into some high place, like say a nationally televised ceremony? You are obligated to shout from it as loudly as possible, because the message is so important. Same thing this guy did: http://www.freewayblogger.com (http://www.freewayblogger.com/) He got up onto a rooftop and shouted. Same thing all of us lefties do. Same thing I would have done. If I had been in that ceremony I would have said a lot worse and then probably ended it but chucking my Oscar into the orchestra pit (not at anyone), but that’s just me. I mean. . . we’re a group that protests in the streets you know. We live our lives by this stuff.
You say the Oscar incident was an episode of egotism, and, I don't know, maybe it was. But, I’d like you to consider the fact that he invited every single documentary nominee up there with him, and they all went up there, and they all supported what he did.I'll just say this and leave you to make your own conclusions: Michael Moore originally stated his latest "creation" was set to be a factual account of what transpired with President G.W. Bush in the days surrounding the attacks of September 11th. This lasted until the 9/11 Commission's Report came out and found almost half of this movie is based on factualy inaccurate material. Uuuuhhhh. . . Yeah. . . See. . . I don’t know where you’re getting your information from there Quint but that’s not. . . true. You might be thinking of Columbine. Columbine was full of holes. This time around everything else has been fact checked, because he didn’t do the fact checking. This movie is a regurgitation of all the lefty case against the president, which has only been confirmed by the 9/11 report. I know this for a fact. . . so I’m really scratching my head over where you’re getting your information from.The movie was then billed as a "editorial" view of what transpired, now it's being billed as something more along the lines of a "political cartoon." These aren't changes folks like Fox News have made, we're talking people like Moore himself and/or the New York Times. EDIT: Ok, read the review you're talking about, and unfortunatly, you are misreading it. It calls the movie a cartoon only in its use of unflattering images of the president, not in its use of fact. The review calls the movie "a muckraking inquisition into the use and abuse of power," and states that the film "mostly. . . sifts through the public record, constructing a chronicle of misrule that stretches from the Florida recount to the events of this spring." It's this public record that the anti-Bush case is based off of. It is incontestable. Oh, and in regards to Fox News, they are not "ultra conservatism cornered". They blast both sides of the isle and you know what, if you think their ultra conservative because when they have debates the "right" side of the isle is represented by someone who actually knows what they're talking about...can't help you there. If they are so bad, makes me wonder how this network who became the number one cable news network surpassed CNN...who was actually available on twice as many TV sets than Fox. Well, the studies don’t seem to bear that statement out so I’ll just leave you with it.Although many people assume that O'Reilly is a crazy right winger...he does posses alot of liberal views. Plus he investigates instead of relying on what the rest of the world says is true. Yeah. . . No. . . You are joking. . . If you liberal you mean rasist views, then yes. . . he's said quite a few things like that. I can get you out the list if you need it. . . Colmes is actually quite the firecracker.He’s occasionally stood up. Firecracker. No. . . I’m a firecracker. . . Colmes is no firecracker. . .What I find interesting about these raving directors is how people respond. You have all the fake people (actors) aplauding and nodding their heads. But the real people in the back are booing and looking quite irrate. You seem to have created a self-fulfilling argument as the only real designation here for whether someone is real or fake is if they agreed with Moore or not. I would remind you that half the audience was booing. But look, even if that’s true, it really depends more of the political beliefs of the “real” people then doesn’t it?

[TerrierMom]

I won't go see it. I think it's too soon for anyone to be making political hay out of 9/11. It hasn't even been 3 years yet. I think it is disgusting and disrespectful. I live within 100 miles of NYC and knew more than one person who died that day. This goes for either side. I despised the ads supporting Bush for 2004 which used images from 9/11, and I plan to show my opinion on the matter not voting for him. Refusing to see Fahrenheit 9/11 registers my disagreement with the other side.

[Ragdrazi]

I think there is a real difference between making hay, and taking real important exception to the policies that have been taken in these people's names. We do grave disservice to the dead by closing ourselves down to all political debate involving that event. It's one thing to say, "Look at the dead! Vote for me!" It's another thing to say, "Look at what's happened. You decide."

[Sweetie]

Like, maybe I misunderstood the "open door" segment. Because I take for granted that you're not always going to lock your door when you're at home. Maybe that's not the case in America but I would be a little surprised if it wasn't. And the biggest city that he went to here wasn't all that big as far as cities go... So, while it's true, it's misleading. It's an implicit exaggeration.


Well, I'm from America and we definitely don't have all our doors padlocked shut twenty-four hours a day ;) We don't all have guns in our closet for "self defense" either, and my bank doesn't give out free weapons when someone opens an account. When we supervise small children outside, our biggest motivation is that they'll wander off or get hit by a car, not that they'll be a victim of a drive-by shooting.

Moore does seem to greatly exaggerate, oversimplify, and stereotype. I think he has some good ideas, but my views on him are similar to my views on PETA. Worthwhile cause, and sometimes radical action is necessary, but other times it only generates negative attention and isn't the best route to take.

[TerrierMom]

I think there is a real difference between making hay, and taking real important exception to the policies that have been taken in these people's names. We do grave disservice to the dead by closing ourselves down to all political debate involving that event. It's one thing to say, "Look at the dead! Vote for me!" It's another thing to say, "Look at what's happened. You decide."


True. But I think that Moore is as biased in his opinions as the people making ads for Bush. I honestly don't think he offers a neutral, balanced insight. He's got his own agenda. I don't need him taking me by the hand like an ignorant stupid lamb to be able to figure out what's been going on.

[Ragdrazi]

There's a difference between being biased, which Moore most definitely is, and presenting well researched fact that supports a particular case, which Moore is (in this case unquestionably) doing. The thing is, these facts aren't really well known, which is why Moore needs to be doing what he's doing. If people would attempt to figure out what what's been going on in mass, we wouldn't need Moore on a loudspeaker. The idea that he's trying to treat you like an ignorant lamb is, well, maybe you have a point in a way. Individually, you really don't need this movie at all. But I think the country does.

[John Quint]

There's a difference between being biased, which Moore most definitely is, and presenting well researched fact that supports a particular case, which Moore is (in this case unquestionably) doing.

I'm sorry so say that such a statement cannot be made. Some of the critical "facts" he presents are actually supposition. This became crystal clear when what he has in this movie goes right up against the facts released in the 9/11 Commission report. His factual basis for this movie is in serious question in many circles. The revelation of the errors are so great that now one of his greatest supporters, the New York Times, is even saying the film is best described as a "political cartoon" than an actual documentary.

I'd suggest reading an article by Christopher Hitchens on MSN (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723 (click here)). This guy isn't pro-Bush in any respect, considered a left-wing columnist, etc.

[mundungus420]

This became crystal clear when what he has in this movie goes right up against the facts released in the 9/11 Commission report.
O'riely has been pounding this home on his radio show.
Dont know why he believes this commision, being a man who

investigates instead of relying on what the rest of the world says is true.

the lines seperating documentaries and political cartoons have long since imploded. Objectivity is a myth. I think moore recognizes this better than bill and the "no spin" crew.

[Ragdrazi]

Alright, the Slate article is really. . . It doesn't catch Moore in any lie at all. . . It just assumes it's right. . . "However, I think we can agree that the film is so flat-out phony that 'fact-checking' is beside the point." So what that means is that the author hasn't done any fact checking. If he did he would find things like the fact that Moore is justified in his characterization of Bush as taking a lot of vacations, because he has taken more vacation then any other sitting president. . . in history. . .
But more then that. . . the only "lie" the article can actually really claim is about the bin Laden flight thing. The Right has claimed over and over again that this is a "lie" by choosing to selectively word their claim. The claim is that the 9/11 commission disproves it. . . But. . . well. . . here: http://www.michaelmoore.com/mustread/f911facts/isikoff.php

These facts are based entirely on the findings contained in the 9/11 commission draft report, which states, "After the airspace reopened, six chartered flights with 142 people, mostly Saudi Arabian nationals, departed from the United States between September 14 and 24. One flight, the so-called Bin Ladin flight, departed the United States on September 20 with 26 passengers, most of them relatives of Usama Bin Ladin." National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, Threats and Responses in 2001, Staff Statement No. 10, The Saudi Flights, p. 12; So. . . basically, I'm all for attacking Moore. But not with lies.

Also. . . your auther is not in anyway left wing. After listing Moore's points from the film, which is the anti-war position, he then declares the postions false and controdictary. . . including the disgusting: "This I divine from the fact that this supposedly 'antiwar' film is dedicated ruefully to all those killed there, as well as in Iraq." To be anti-war, you cannot morn the troops! No no no no! Only true patriots can do that. This guy is a rabid dog.

EDIT: More then that. . . he makes mischaracterizations of his own. He claims that Richard Clark has taken soul responsibility for authorizing the bin Laden, but in the article he links to there's this:“The request came to me, and I refused to approve it,” Clarke testified. “I suggested that it be routed to the FBI and that the FBI look at the names of the individuals who were going to be on the passenger manifest and that they approve it or not. I spoke with the — at the time — No. 2 person in the FBI, Dale Watson, and asked him to deal with this issue. The FBI then approved … the flight.”
“That’s a little different than saying, ‘I claim sole responsibility for it now,’” Roemer said yesterday. He eventually did approve the request, but he did not make it. And he does not know who did. So, that's a lie.

He disapproves of Moore’s use of images surrounding the Iraqi bombing, claiming it ties the event too close to civilians. But are we supposed to forget that 100's died in that campaign of air strikes. . . that we are now over 10,000 civilian dead?

He strains on every other claim he makes here. . . At best he proves that Moore may not have built a good case. But he doesn’t disprove a single fact. the New York Times, is even saying the film is best described as a "political cartoon" than an actual documentary. And once again Quint. I've read the article you are talking about. They did not call it a "political cartoon" for lack of factual content. They actually praised the factual content, but felt that the potrials of political figures contained there in, ie. Bush on a golf course, Ashcroft singing "Let the Eagle Soar," made the movie a cartoon.

If you need it. . . http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/23/movies/23FAHR.html?ex=1119585600&en=8bec60a6970d1c22&ei=5083&partner=Rotten%20Tomatoes

Anyway. . . I'm really getting tired of all the factitious arguments here.

[Midnightsfire]

I'd suggest reading an article by Christopher Hitchens on MSN (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102723 (http://click%20here)). This guy isn't pro-Bush in any respect, considered a left-wing columnist, etc.
He was left-wing. Since September 11th he has been unfailingly conservative - he's wildly pro the war in Iraq. He quit his job at The Nation and now goes around screaming about how terrible liberals are. It wouldn't surprise me that he wouldn't like the movie.

[The Forsaken]

So I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night. It was good, my question is where the heck does Moore get these tapes? He had John Ashcroft singing an original patriotic song. That was hiliarious. For everyone who says the film is overly biased, I have to disagree after seeing it. Moore's comments are biased and the selection of footage he uses is slanted, but the tapes of George Bush and pals speaking, as well as the infamous coffin photograph, in addition to the obscure facts Moore brings up, ie. that only one member of Congress has a child on active duty in Iraq, can't be denied as more honest fact than most of the news.

[Dottie]

So I saw Fahrenheit 9/11 last night. It was good, my question is where the heck does Moore get these tapes? He had John Ashcroft singing an original patriotic song. That was hiliarious. For everyone who says the film is overly biased, I have to disagree after seeing it. Moore's comments are biased and the selection of footage he uses is slanted, but the tapes of George Bush and pals speaking, as well as the infamous coffin photograph, in addition to the obscure facts Moore brings up, ie. that only one member of Congress has a child on active duty in Iraq, can't be denied as more honest fact than most of the news.

Just because facts are presented doesn't mean that they aren't shown in a context that isn't biased. Michael Moore openly admitted to splicing footage in "Bowling for Columbine", especially during the Charlton Heston scene, to change the context of his comments.

[Chrysalis]

Just because facts are presented doesn't mean that they aren't shown in a context that isn't biased. Michael Moore openly admitted to splicing footage in "Bowling for Columbine", especially during the Charlton Heston scene, to change the context of his comments.

I don't see how that fact that only one senator had his child sent to Iraq can be taken out of context. The most gung-ho hawks are the ones who push every other boy or girl onto a draft but have a long history of non-participation for their own family.

[free_girl]

I think if you go to this link http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/trailer_sm.html you'll find it quite intresting on some people views of micheal moore, and you'll most likely figure out what mine is.

[Dagmar]

I think if you go to this link http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/trailer_sm.html you'll find it quite intresting on some people views of micheal moore, and you'll most likely figure out what mine is.
I think calling Michael Moore a filmaker is a bit grandiose. He must have been shooting for speech writer and couldn't hack it.
But you gotta give him credit for finding a way to make a buck. And isn't that what his "films" are really about now? He takes a charged issue, finds the populace opinion and runs with it. This way he figures he'll get the largest audience. And because of the dichotomy of opinions on his subjects he is assured much free publicity.

[Snapes_lovr]

I saw Moore on Late Night with Conan O'Brian last night and I must say that the interview was at first pleasing. But halfway through he commented on how Bush shouldn't be elected for the first time...implying that he didn't win the 2000 election. He also said that our soldiers shouldn't have been sent off to a war they didn't approve of. Yet the soldiers approval rating is drastically higher than that of the American public. Plus when he says something like that it makes me think of those over seas ballots that were thrown out. Hmmm...

[Chrysalis]

I saw Moore on Late Night with Conan O'Brian last night and I must say that the interview was at first pleasing. But halfway through he commented on how Bush shouldn't be elected for the first time...implying that he didn't win the 2000 election. He also said that our soldiers shouldn't have been sent off to a war they didn't approve of. Yet the soldiers approval rating is drastically higher than that of the American public. Plus when he says something like that it makes me think of those over seas ballots that were thrown out. Hmmm...

What's wrong with saying that? The man is giving his views on the matter, just as you have every right to give yours. As for this:

No, it wasn't the time or place -- according to the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences and the network airing the Oscars... You know, the folks who actually throw the shindig, award the Oscars and televise it? They requested that honorees focus on the purpose of the gala (celebrating the art of film, and the accomplishments of the night's honorees) rather than politics -- not the government. But Moore just decided, "Screw my peers! I can do whatever I want to! I'm Michael Moore!"
Er...Academy Awards is, just like the rest of the American media, controlled by right-wingers.:huh: I remember those folks trying to declare A Beautiful Mind as an anti-semitic movie.:huh: Anyway, he said it during the Oscars, fine. It wouldn't have been a great sensation if some actor stood up and said what a fine job W. was doing. Anyway, most people seem to have this hang up about a celebrity voicing their opinion in public. Well guess what? They're people too, and they have as much right to it as the normal person on the streets does. Thom Yorke regularly criticizes Bush during performances and he apparently once even did a spastic Tony Blair impression. He has every right to, just as you and me. It's idiotic when people tell me that musicians and actors shouldn't voice their opinions because 'that's not their job and they have no right to force their opinion upon us'. Well, when did their opinion matter, then? It's sad that people feel intruded upon if someone of at least moderate fame expresses view that are not in accordance with their own.

[PrtVeela]

I saw Moore on Late Night with Conan O'Brian last night and I must say that the interview was at first pleasing. But halfway through he commented on how Bush shouldn't be elected for the first time...implying that he didn't win the 2000 election. He also said that our soldiers shouldn't have been sent off to a war they didn't approve of. Yet the soldiers approval rating is drastically higher than that of the American public. Plus when he says something like that it makes me think of those over seas ballots that were thrown out. Hmmm...

I saw that too. He said that our solidiers shouldn't be fighting that war because there was no reason too. (no W.M.D's, ties etc. etc.) He was talking about the war in Afghanistan and how Bush has been 'syphoning' soliders from that war to go fight the war in Iraq. Moore wasn't talking about the approval of the American soliders about the war, at least I didn't hear that part I might have missed it though. However the army has generally always been pretty republican, so its no surpirse that they would have a higher approval rating of Bush and for the war.

As for Moore himself, I support anyone that is willing to speak their mind, especially if it goes against the quid pro quo. It's good to ruffle feathers, if it will bring more attention to the election that is good news to me. I think its is incredibly important that we have people like Moore to stir the pot. I don't agree with absolutley everything he says, but that doesn't mean he still does not have things that are pertentant. I hope this inpsires people to debate politics and situations in their everday lives and to really start thinking for themselves instead of relying on what Fox or Msnbc tells them to.

[salomeya]

i'm going to see Fahrenheit 9/11 tonight.. i'm excited, i support Michael Moore and what he does.. he is simply voicing out his opinion on Bush's administration and how he is running the country.. he is pointing out things that many people don't care to admit are problems, either out of their personal closed-mindedness or fear of being hated [like Michael Moore is by many people]. i think Bush is farrr from perfect and someone pointing that out isn't a bad thing..

anyway, hasn't anyone ever heard of the First Ammendment which gives all americans freedom of speech and press?!? so Moore has every right to make his movies and say what he wants.. thus, i don't see what the big deal is. he is exercising the freedoms that are entitled to him..

[Ragdrazi]

Plus when he says something like that it makes me think of those over seas ballots that were thrown out. Hmmm... I fail to understand what you are talking about. The fact is that in the 2000 elections many over seas ballots were counted that were completely illegal, because they were post marked after the polls were closed. Republicans fought hard for these ballots to be counted, and won, because they knew that demographically soldiers tend to vote Republican. Also, if a full and far recount had been done, the recount that was called for -by law- mind you, it has been discovered that Bush would have indeed lost. Excuse me, that should read did indeed loose. Now Democrats had their part to play in insuring that such a recount would not take place, by demanding that recounts only take place in highly Democratic counties, ie. both sides were not interested in fairness, but if the recount had taken place unfettered Gore would have won.

[Dottie]

I don't see how that fact that only one senator had his child sent to Iraq can be taken out of context. The most gung-ho hawks are the ones who push every other boy or girl onto a draft but have a long history of non-participation for their own family.

Well, let me ask you this: Since when does being the son of someone elected into the Senate or Congress automatically mean you have to run to the nearest recruiting office and sign up for service in the war for Iraq? Sure, the fact that only one has their child serving and that is fact, but its completely irrevelant.

And chasing busy senators down in Washington DC when they probably have an incredibly busy schedule and don't have time to stop and talk to Michael Moore and berating them about their kids not being in Iraq, that is out of context. It makes them look rude and like they're blowing him off.

[PrtVeela]

Well, let me ask you this: Since when does being the son of someone elected into the Senate or Congress automatically mean you have to run to the nearest recruiting office and sign up for service in the war for Iraq? Sure, the fact that only one has their child serving and that is fact, but its completely irrevelant.

And chasing busy senators down in Washington DC when they probably have an incredibly busy schedule and don't have time to stop and talk to Michael Moore and berating them about their kids not being in Iraq, that is out of context. It makes them look rude and like they're blowing him off.

I don't think that was the implication, but lets face it if their sons and daughters were fighting that war would they still be so gung ho about it? No of course not, it would be a completley different story. And it isn't irrevelant, in past wars, it is always the poor and middle class who fight the wars, many a time the super rich and super powerful find ways to skirt fighting. That is an undeniable fact, disgusting as it is.

Oh so these, 'busy senators' don't have time to talk to Micheal Moore, but they do have time to hold press conferences, they do have time to appear on talk shows every week, and they do have time to help Presidents and Presidental candidates to campaign?

Newsflash: Senators are rude and they do blow people off. Welcome to the wonderfully horrible world of American Politics.

[Draugr]

Hermann Göring, 1939
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is to tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."


"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does NOT mean to stand by the President or any other public official save exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country. "

- Theodore Roosevelt


War Pigs - Black Sabbath

Generals gathered in their masses
just like witches at black masses
evil minds that plot destruction
sorcerers of death's construction
in the fields the bodies burning
as the war machine keeps turning
death and hatred to mankind
poisoning their brainwashed minds, oh lord yeah!

Politicians hide themselves away
they only started the war
Why should they go out to fight?
They leave that role to the poor

Time will tell on their power minds
Making war just for fun
Treating people just like pawns in chess
Wait 'till their judgement day comes, yeah!

Now in darkness, world stops turning
ashes were the bodies burning
No more war pigs of the power
Hand of god has struck the hour
Day of judgement, god is calling
on their knees, the war pigs crawling
Begging mercy for their sins
Satan, laughing, spreads his wings

[HollywoodBob]

I think that's the first time I've ever seen the Blizzard of Oz, A president and a member of the third Reich all quoted at once. :D

-HollywoodBob

[Dottie]

I don't think that was the implication, but lets face it if their sons and daughters were fighting that war would they still be so gung ho about it? No of course not, it would be a completley different story. And it isn't irrevelant, in past wars, it is always the poor and middle class who fight the wars, many a time the super rich and super powerful find ways to skirt fighting. That is an undeniable fact, disgusting as it is.

How are who fights the wars in the past in any way relevant to senators? There's not many of them, and typical upper-middle class/upper class people outnumber them greatly. I think that focusing on them because they are in a decision making position is a bit unfair. Their sons and daughters have nothing to do with the war in Iraq, and berating them only creates a "evil American politician" bias and solves nothing. There are a lot of "what ifs" and "if onlys" you can pose, but it doesn't really mean much.

Oh so these, 'busy senators' don't have time to talk to Micheal Moore, but they do have time to hold press conferences, they do have time to appear on talk shows every week, and they do have time to help Presidents and Presidental candidates to campaign?

What senator appears on weekly talk shows? And since when did it mean that when you're a senator you aren't always campaigning? I'm not claiming that they're all GREAT people with anyone but themselves in mind, but why should Michael Moore get special senator access when there's a whole world of thriving media that may want to talk to them? And it isn't like Michael Moore is approaching them fairly, he's just shouting them. He knows they won't stop.

Newsflash: Senators are rude and they do blow people off. Welcome to the wonderfully horrible world of American Politics

Why is every senator in this catagory?

[Draugr]

I've e-mailed senators before and all I got was a "Thank your opinion is important. Have a good day"

Yeah, like that isnt cookie cutter.

If the Senators knew their children would have to serve in Iraq, do you think they would want a war in Iraq knowing their child could die over there? Of course not.

Erwin Rommel had his own son serve in the military, his son died before him (Rommel commited suicide instead of facing a trial for his attempt to kill Hitler)

[PrtVeela]

Dottie:How are who fights the wars in the past in any way relevant to senators? There's not many of them, and typical upper-middle class/upper class people outnumber them greatly. I think that focusing on them because they are in a decision making position is a bit unfair. Their sons and daughters have nothing to do with the war in Iraq, and berating them only creates a "evil American politician" bias and solves nothing. There are a lot of "what ifs" and "if onlys" you can pose, but it doesn't really mean much.

The past is indicitive of the future, and because that is what is happening now. The point I was trying to make is that a lot of people, not just politicians but them to, would think longer and harder about the war if it effect them personally.

What senator appears on weekly talk shows? And since when did it mean that when you're a senator you aren't always campaigning? I'm not claiming that they're all GREAT people with anyone but themselves in mind, but why should Michael Moore get special senator access when there's a whole world of thriving media that may want to talk to them? And it isn't like Michael Moore is approaching them fairly, he's just shouting them. He knows they won't stop.

Joe Biden, McCain, to name a few. We know the adminstration often has his people doing damange control on Meet the Press and all the sunday shows, every week. Michael Moore did not want to sit down and have 1 hour dicussions with them, he wanted five minutes of their time, if that. That is not too much to ask.


Why is every senator in this catagory?

Because Power Corrupts and Absolute power corrupts absolutley. I do not have an optimistic view about American Politics or Politicians. The truth remains that a vast majority of the politicians in America are deplohrable people, they may not have started out like that, but that's the system. You have got to fight tooth and nail every step of the way, so its going to be dirty, and its going to be immoral and often times unethical, and to say that its not is truly ignoring the obvious.

[Dottie]

The past is indicitive of the future, and because that is what is happening now. The point I was trying to make is that a lot of people, not just politicians but them to, would think longer and harder about the war if it effect them personally.

I don't think this is necessarily the case. I know of some fairly upper class people (friends) who's son went to war, and they still support the war fully. But selfishness in wanting the war cannot be combatted with selfishness because their children are serving.



Joe Biden, McCain, to name a few. We know the adminstration often has his people doing damange control on Meet the Press and all the sunday shows, every week. Michael Moore did not want to sit down and have 1 hour dicussions with them, he wanted five minutes of their time, if that. That is not too much to ask.

Speaking personally for a moment, I know I would not like to speak to Michael Moore for 5 minutes. As I stated earlier, he has this seedy way of editing speech and removing context (like with Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine) which wouldn't do anything except create blind bias against the senator for his comments. If he makes them look rude by harassing them on the way to work, just imagine what could happen if they spoke to him.


Because Power Corrupts and Absolute power corrupts absolutley. I do not have an optimistic view about American Politics or Politicians. The truth remains that a vast majority of the politicians in America are deplohrable people, they may not have started out like that, but that's the system. You have got to fight tooth and nail every step of the way, so its going to be dirty, and its going to be immoral and often times unethical, and to say that its not is truly ignoring the obvious.

I don't know any of them personally, I can't comment on what kinds of people they are. I do know all about lobbying and the money involved and the votes you can get by getting in the right spot in an issue, but I don't think this means they have to sit down with everyone who wants a moment with their time.

[Draugr]

I do know all about lobbying and the money involved and the votes you can get by getting in the right spot in an issue, but I don't think this means they have to sit down with everyone who wants a moment with their time.
Ok, so only people with money deserve to get themselves heard? IS that it?!

Speaking personally for a moment, I know I would not like to speak to Michael Moore for 5 minutes. As I stated earlier, he has this seedy way of editing speech and removing context (like with Charlton Heston in Bowling for Columbine) which wouldn't do anything except create blind bias against the senator for his comments. If he makes them look rude by harassing them on the way to work, just imagine what could happen if they spoke to him.
And the media doesnt do this? And the politicians don't use it against each other? They could speek to them, they just would have to have a good choice of words?

[mevam]

Michael Moore doesn't take slack from anyone, and you have to admire that. He's a man of convictions, and whether or not people agree with his opinions doesn't change him being someone who refuses to be silenced and who will keep professing his opinions. We need more people like that in North America, especially in America, people who won't accept being labelled "unpatriotic" because they decide to speak out against a corrupt corporation running the country. Michael Moore has shown through his documentaries and his books that he is not afraid of exposing what he sees as the truth, and instead of chastising him for his bluntness, we should be debating what we do and do not agree with in terms of his views, it would make America stronger.

[Dottie]

Ok, so only people with money deserve to get themselves heard? IS that it?!

You misunderstood me. I'm saying its only the people with money that do get heard. I didn't think I made any comments supporting this behavior, but I was simply a statement of how I see it to work.


And the media doesnt do this? And the politicians don't use it against each other? They could speek to them, they just would have to have a good choice of words, not some ignorant male bovine fecal matter like usual?

I won't comment on this, I think this was uncalled for.

[Draugr]

I'm waiting for someone to go: "In the words of the Vice President: Go F*** yourself"


www.uspolitics.da.ru

[Hagrid442]

Seeing as we're on the subject about 1 of 535 congresspeople having children in the service.

Fortunate Son by Creedence Clearwater Revival

Some folks are born made to wave the flag,
Ooh, they’re red, white and blue.
And when the band plays hail to the chief,
Ooh, they point the cannon at you, lord,

It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no senator’s son, son.
It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, no,

Yeah!
Some folks are born silver spoon in hand,
Lord, don’t they help themselves, oh.
But when the taxman comes to the door,
Lord, the house looks like a rummage sale, yes,

It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no millionaire’s son, no.
It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, no.

Some folks inherit star spangled eyes,
Ooh, they send you down to war, lord,
And when you ask them, how much should we give?
Ooh, they only answer more! more! more! yoh,

It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no military son, son.
It ain’t me, it ain’t me; I ain’t no fortunate one, one.

It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no fortunate one, no no no,
It ain’t me, it ain’t me, I ain’t no fortunate son, no no no,

[Draugr]

That song is a great song by CCR. It's also goes by the alias "Vietnam Song". It was also on a game recently: Battlefield Vietnam.

I have lots of politically motivated music.

[Hagrid442]

This is a chauvinistic belief of mine, but I think CCR is the epitome of what America is. :)

[Draugr]

Ok, how is that a chauvinistic belief and howcome you think CCR is the prime example of what America is?

[Hagrid442]

I think they're real blue collar, and that every American should like at least one of their songs. Hehehe :)

[Sineed]

Hagrid, you beat me to it. I was going to quote the Vietnam song.

Though I am not American, my father is an American military veteren who finished twelve years of service in 1969. It is totally relevant that the sons and daughters of the wealthy and powerful don't generally go into military service because it points out the inequalities in American society. Does this need saying? The wealthy and powerful have options that the working class kids don't. My dad joined up partly because he was going to get drafted anyway, but also because he couldn't afford to go to college. The military gives you a job and a free education. But if you're rich, you don't need a job and a free education.

I don't understand all the accusations of bias. Of course he's biased. Mike isn't pretending to be balanced and unbiased. Sure, he's a buffoon sometimes, but doesn't injustice deserve outrage?

[Hagrid442]

I know. Michael Moore admits readily that he has a bias. He doesn't pretend to be fair or balanced. So, accusations that he's biased are specious.

[Snapes_lovr]

Originally posted by: Prt Veela
As for Moore himself, I support anyone that is willing to speak their mind, especially if it goes against the quid pro quo.
I don't see him going against the current. I see Moore joining all the other sheep. The media is prodominately liberal. So Moores just appealing to the public through the media...how original.

[PrtVeela]

I don't see him going against the current. I see Moore joining all the other sheep. The media is prodominately liberal. So Moores just appealing to the public through the media...how original.

Actually, if you look at the bigger picture, only the journlists tend to be liberal minded, or at least more so then the American public. However, if one were to look at who owns media channels you would find that they are large, enormous infact, corporations. GE owns NBC, Rupert Murdoch and News Corp, Fox and Fox's subsiduaries. And the owners of these companies are extremley conservative. So in fact the whole 'liberal media' perception is quite off base with reality because despite what the journalists feel, they are getting paid by the higher-ups who are Conservatives. (Noam Chomskey, I massacred his last name but he is the one who this idea is attributed to).

And just because the perceived 'liberal media' may have views that are somewhat similar to Micheal Moore's does not mean they are one in the same. Many people in the media have come out stating that, while it is a good movie the movie is meant as propaganda and the word documentary is to be used loosley.(Chris Matthews, The Christ Matthews show, this sunday morning).

Moore is going against the current administration, and if you watch news carefully. You would find that the current media is playing it rather cautiously with the administration. You would be hard pressed to find any of the 'liberal media' talking about the administration with out hearing from the 'Right' side. Anyway, the media has generally always been like this because they need the access into the white house, and they aren't going to get it by acting like Micheal Moore, so I would say in that sense, he is going against the current.

[Kelfa21]

I just saw the movie last night. I enjoyed it very much.

I was horrified by the reaction Bush had when told about the attacks...he sat there...with almost a confused and bewildered look on his face for seven minuets. As I watched this scene I couldent help but note that at that exact moment I was watching the events unfold with my friends in disbelief and horror.

That is not the reaction a president should have when he realizes his country is under attack at that precise moment.

Most of the stuff in the movie is footage we've seen before....but that seven minute reaction was an eye opener!

[Dottie]

I just saw the movie last night. I enjoyed it very much.

I was horrified by the reaction Bush had when told about the attacks...he sat there...with almost a confused and bewildered look on his face for seven minuets. As I watched this scene I couldent help but note that at that exact moment I was watching the events unfold with my friends in disbelief and horror.

That is not the reaction a president should have when he realizes his country is under attack at that precise moment.

Most of the stuff in the movie is footage we've seen before....but that seven minute reaction was an eye opener!

Well, I'm glad he didn't put on a helmet, dive under the desk and cry. What other reaction were you expecting? What should a "good president" do when they're told thousands of people could be dead because terrorists crashed airplanes into the Twin Towers? I'm actually surprised the president didn't take more time to let it settle.

[Kelfa21]

Well, I'm glad he didn't put on a helmet, dive under the desk and cry. What other reaction were you expecting? What should a "good president" do when they're told thousands of people could be dead because terrorists crashed airplanes into the Twin Towers? I'm actually surprised the president didn't take more time to let it settle.

I was expecting him to at least excuse himself from the classroom and take some action....its his people who are being attacked!

Figure out exactly what should be done and not sit there and read a **** children's book.

His staff...sat there and waited for his next move and he did nothing....what was he waiting for? Firefighters and police officers dident not sit and contemplate the severity of the situation...they did not waste precious minuets with expresions of horror and confusion.

[PrtVeela]

Well, I'm glad he didn't put on a helmet, dive under the desk and cry. What other reaction were you expecting? What should a "good president" do when they're told thousands of people could be dead because terrorists crashed airplanes into the Twin Towers? I'm actually surprised the president didn't take more time to let it settle.

LOL Dottie we agree on something :) Despite my utter disdain for the President, I don't think he should have gotten up and ran out of the room. That would have really been harmful to the children, its not like he stayed a couple more hours, it was only a couple more minutes until he finished the book he was reading. This is one of the cases where Moore was a bit off-base with his critisicism.

[Snapes_lovr]

In reference to what Veela said about the public not being as liberal as journalists. What about our teachers? I can't say I've ever had a conservative teacher. And all the teachers I've had many arguements with previous educators all trying to shove their libertanian twinkie ideas down my throat. And I'm sure that there are many more people like that out there.

And as Dottie said, President Bush is a human being. Was he supposed to act like a robot when he recieved the news about the Twin Towers? No, I think he was just as horrified as the rest of us.

[Dottie]

LOL Dottie we agree on something :) Despite my utter disdain for the President, I don't think he should have gotten up and ran out of the room. That would have really been harmful to the children, its not like he stayed a couple more hours, it was only a couple more minutes until he finished the book he was reading. This is one of the cases where Moore was a bit off-base with his critisicism.

:wow: I think the world stopped turning. :p ;) I definetly agree with you here, too, it would have scared the children if he said, "Sorry kids, the country is under attack". I'm not sure if at their age they would have understood.

I was expecting him to at least excuse himself from the classroom and take some action....its his people who are being attacked!

Figure out exactly what should be done and not sit there and read a **** children's book.

His staff...sat there and waited for his next move and he did nothing....what was he waiting for? Firefighters and police officers dident not sit and contemplate the severity of the situation...they did not waste precious minuets with expresions of horror and confusion.

Fire fighters and police officers are nowhere one and the same with the president. Just because he finished a book doesn't mean that the entire administration was at a stand still in his absence. If this were the case, everytime the present went to mean with foreign dignitaries, we'd be in shambles.

[HollywoodBob]

I'm sorry but to sit there and do nothing was completely out of line.

He could have simply said that "Something important has come up and he needed to be elsewhere." and excused himself. That's what a RESPONSIBLE President would have done.

-HollywoodBob

[Snapes_lovr]

Oh and responsible Presidents mess with their interns too...right.

[HollywoodBob]

I never claimed Clinton was responsible. Though having an affair with a willing intern, and sitting idly by during a time of crisis are two very different things.

-HollywoodBob

[Dottie]

I'm sorry but to sit there and do nothing was completely out of line.

He could have simply said that "Something important has come up and he needed to be elsewhere." and excused himself. That's what a RESPONSIBLE President would have done.

-HollywoodBob

Like I said before, the crisis was not worsened by what Moore is pointing out as a lapse in judgement. Things were already being handled in New York by Guillani and others.

[Chrysalis]

Oh and responsible Presidents mess with their interns too...right.
Don't bring Clinton into this issue. No one said anything about him or even implied anything.

Having an affair with an intern and sitting by idly during an emergency of catastrophic proportions, affecting the entire nation, are two things which are not comparable at all.

[Kelfa21]

I'm sorry but to sit there and do nothing was completely out of line.

He could have simply said that "Something important has come up and he needed to be elsewhere." and excused himself. That's what a RESPONSIBLE President would have done.

-HollywoodBob

Exactly....if I were president I would want to know immediatly what was going on. Where, how, theories as to why and what is the next plan of action.

A simple..."Excuse me" would suffice. He is the president...the teacher would at least understand...

Up until I saw that footage of the president sitting there....I had always assumed that at the exact moment he found out about the attack he took action


Fire fighters and police officers are nowhere one and the same with the president. Just because he finished a book doesn't mean that the entire administration was at a stand still in his absence. If this were the case, everytime the present went to mean with foreign dignitaries, we'd be in shambles.

I'd say a situation like 9/11 is a bit more severe then any meeting with a foreign dignitary. Besides...I don't expect that his administration would be at a stand still. I'm just criticising Bush as a President. Much of his administration was being cleared out of harm's way at the white house at the time.

Body language says quite alot about a person. I saw a look that was dumbfounded as to what to do next.

[Padfoot23]

I just saw the movie on opening night. The footage of Bush just sitting there was amazing. I agree that he should have ended his little photo op, excused himself and left. He didn't even look stunned or worried or anything....his look was compleatly blank.

As for the rest of the film, the connections Moore made between the Bush family, the Saudi gov't, and the BinLadens I think was the most interesting part of the film. Many people in the states are compleatly unaware of the US's ties to the BinLadens and Saudi Arabia.

The interviews with the soldiers were good, and footage from Iraq was heart wrenching. I felt that the footage of the militry mother crying near the white house was a little excessive. We already saw her pour her heart out about her son dying in Iraq and his last letter home...showing her crying more in Washington DC was a little much. But hearing her story was very powerful because in the states you don't hear much from military families when they loose someone in the war...the media just covers it up.

The stuff about recruiters was dead on correct. Both my brothers are in the Navy and they were recruited because they were average students and my parents didn't have enough money to send them to college. So they joined the military for the ticket out of philadelphia, some excitment, job training and possible college money. This is why most people join the military today in the US.

So, I generally liked the film...I think that everyone should see it.

[Ragdrazi]

Three things. First Clinton, when looked at under a liberal lens comes out very very bad. That administration is responsible for literally hundreds of anti-environmental trade deals. He is responsible for the no-fly zone bombing of Iraq, which, contrary to right wing rhetoric, had I believe it was a 75% civilian casualty rate. Bombed sheep. Bombed fishing villages. Bombed a much needed pharmaceutical plant for some other reason. (ie. none) No Clinton was not a real great guy in my opinion.

As for the media coverage being overwhelmingly left-wing, this is something that the right-wing echo chamber has been selling to the public for years. And it just simply isn't true. I actually resurched this for college, so I kind of know what I'm talking about.
Conservative’s claim there is left wing bias with no agreed upon model of why that should be, only the idea that reporters are liberals. They also have scant few long-term studies, most of which show only that Republicans were identified as Republicans more often then Democrats as Democrats. Something which might very well show bias in their favor.
On the left side, in claiming bias towards the right, there is a reasonable model for why this should be, the Herman-Chomsky Model, and several long term studies, which show, among other things the mainstream media's reliance on right wing think tanks as sources.

Thirdly, uh, Snapes, just an fyi, no intention to insult, but your use of the word libertarian. . . at least I think that’s the word you were trying to use there in “libertarian twinkie". . . Libertarian is not a conjugation on the word liberal, it is its own separate and distinct political philosophy, which in no way resembles that of liberals. Just thought you should know.

[Midnightsfire]

I never claimed Clinton was responsible. Though having an affair with a willing intern, and sitting idly by during a time of crisis are two very different things.

-HollywoodBob
I completely agree.

Your the leader of a country that has just been told that the country is under attack. You sit there and read a children's book in front of children hoping it all goes away? Or hope someone comes in and tells you what to do?

(Clinton's name should not be coming up at this point in time, so forget the bait-and-switch fallacy.)

*sigh*

Myth of the Liberal Media Rides Again (http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/02/21/column.billpress/)

Examining the Liberal Media Claim (http://www.fair.org/reports/journalist-survey.html)

[PrtVeela]

Don't bring Clinton into this issue. No one said anything about him or even implied anything.

Having an affair with an intern and sitting by idly during an emergency of catastrophic proportions, affecting the entire nation, are two things which are not comparable at all.

Good point Savoy Truffle! Upon rethinking the Bush issue again, I can see were that would be completley unaccetable, he could have gotten someone else to finish reading, he had gotten the pictures he wanted, and if there were only a couple minutes left in the book, then it wouldn't have been THAT big of a deal to leave. (That's why I love this place, so many perspectives :) )

Responsiblity is not measured in who does or doesn't sleep with an Intern Snapes. I find it quite funny to see people continually point to that aspect of the Clinton Presidency whenever anything is mentioned about Bush,
Bush is bad on the enviroment
well Clinton had an affair.
This is what we call an "appeal to ignorance' ( from an argumentivie persepctive I am not saying you are ignorant). Not to mention the fact that nearly every President in our history has had an affair of some shape or kind, this is nothing knew. I am not condoning it, but we shouldn't act so high and mighty.


As for the media coverage being overwhelmingly left-wing, this is something that the right-wing echo chamber has been selling to the public for years. And it just simply isn't true. I actually resurched this for college, so I kind of know what I'm talking about.
Conservative’s claim there is left wing bias with no agreed upon model of why that should be, only the idea that reporters are liberals. They also have scant few long-term studies, most of which show only that Republicans were identified as Republicans more often then Democrats as Democrats. Something which might very well show bias in their favor.
On the left side, in claiming bias towards the right, there is a reasonable model for why this should be, the Herman-Chomsky Model, and several long term studies, which show, among other things the mainstream media's reliance on right wing think tanks as sources.

That's the Model I was talking about Ragdrazi :) Good point(s)

[HollywoodBob]

Just to clarify, the kids were reading to him.:D

-HollywoodBob

[Wab]

I don't see him going against the current. I see Moore joining all the other sheep. The media is prodominately liberal.

Oh please. The media is predominantly owned and controlled by conservatives.

[Hagrid442]

Oh please. I would much rather that he hurt those kids' feelings and take charge, instead of wasting valuable minutes. What if something even worse was happening, and he didn't do something until it was too late? For somebody that is supposedly "take charge", he sure was anything but that day.

[Wab]

Exactly. Taking charge of crises as they occur is part of the job description.

[Snapes_lovr]

Okay, I finally saw the movie of lies. I hate Moore more than I ever thought humanly possible. The scene that so many of you are talking about (President Bush recieving the news of the attack) wasn't him being confused. He was prossesing what his next move was going to be. Trying to absorb what he just heard and not spook a room full of elementry students. The teacher in the classroom was interviewed only a week after the attack on the trade center and said, "I have emense respect for President Bush and hope that he will be re-elected..." But did Moore add that to his film? No, just as he didn't show the bodies of our own citizens who were butchered by the terrorists that were in bed with Saddam. But Moore jsut thinks that the Bush family is happy about the war and the 911 attack due to their pocket book getting fatter. Well Michael, I'm glad that your pocket book is getting fatter, but that will never get rid of the fact that your a liar and a complete jerk!

[phoenix21701]

Oh please. The media is predominantly owned and controlled by conservatives.


Thank You, Thank You, Thank You!!! It's called Fox New Channel! They practically control the media. It's shocking that Michael's Moore's opinions haven't been expressed much earlier by other medias. It's because Bush and the conservatives won't allow others to express a differing opinion without taking heat or being fined by the FCC. They've made the word "liberal" an offensive term.

[Snapes_lovr]

No, liberals have made the word liberal an offensize term. If anyone puts up a sign or says something they don't like then they attack you or deface your sign. Its because their afraid of free thinking people. Liberals like sheep or are sheep. But not all of them are...for that would be generalizing.

[phoenix21701]

Aren't many conservatives controlled by the religious right? Isn't it their indocrination that limits free thinking?

[Snapes_lovr]

See now your generalizing. No not all conservatives are "controlled" by the religious right. I myself am a moderate republican and I do think freely. Many of my views are liberal. But that has nothing to do with my opinion of Moore's film. Liberal or Conservative his film is a web of lies and distortion. Its simply appauling.

[Ragdrazi]

Wow.Okay, I finally saw the movie of lies. Ohhhh. You must mean White Chicks. . . Because. . . they lie in that movie. . . about being women. . . Now see, I took the joke too far didn’t I. . . I always take the joke too far. I hate Moore more than I ever thought humanly possible. The scene that so many of you are talking about (President Bush recieving the news of the attack) wasn't him being confused. He was prossesing what his next move was going to be. Trying to absorb what he just heard and not spook a room full of elementry students. I fail to see how this is anything but your interpretation of the event. The fact that he would not have had any of the tools to figure out what his next move would be, the fact that he would later go on to lie in a speech about exactly where he was that day, saying that he was watched the first plane fly into the tower on TV when the first plane hitting had not yet been televised, and he did not learn about the events until after the second plane hit does not seem to factor into your approximation of the event. As I wrote on the “Fahrenheit 9/11 reactions” thread, which this post belongs in, bias would seem to simply mean “opinions I disagree with and facts I’d rather not believe are true.” It would seem from your post that your definition of the word “lies” falls along the same lies.The teacher in the classroom was interviewed only a week after the attack on the trade center and said, "I have emense respect for President Bush and hope that he will be re-elected..." But did Moore add that to his film? He did not have to include anyone else’s interpretation of the event. He asks you to create your own interpretation. And you did it! You played right into Moore’s hand!!! How sinister!!!No, just as he didn't show the bodies of our own citizens who were butchered by the terrorists that were in bed with Saddam. That statement shows a complete lack of knowledge on your part as to the relationship between Saddam and al-Qaeda for which no evidence has been found to show the existence there of. No, liberals have made the word liberal an offensize term. If anyone puts up a sign or says something they don't like then they attack you or deface your sign. Its because their afraid of free thinking people. Liberals like sheep or are sheep. But not all of them are...for that would be generalizing. That is your opinion again. I’m afraid I don’t understand your wording of it. But it is true that “liberal” has become stigmatized. Facts in support of the liberal position do not often find their way into the debate and so, it is assumed that we simply don’t have a point. You have seen the facts. And you simply wish to ignore them Snapes. That is quite simply sad. More then that, I find it detestable.

EDIT: Ok. . . wait, I think I get it. You are objecting to liberals defacing signs. Well, the fact of the matter is that happens on both sides. I remember as the war protesting was happening a conservative talk radio station was organizing demonstrations to take place at the same time and place, often on the same street corner, as anti-war protests. This only served to muddle and confuse the message of both sides. But anyway, when you boil down what you’re saying, you are only objecting to the vigorous use of free speech. I’m afraid that is something I cannot object to. This is America. Free speech is met with more free speech. Like it or loath it, this country was founded on the defacement of posters, destruction of property. . . like, oh say, tea. . . In a very real way what you seem to be objecting to is not only our right as Americans. . . it is our duty. See now your generalizing. No not all conservatives are "controlled" by the religious right. I myself am a moderate republican and I do think freely. Many of my views are liberal. Unfortunately, while a single person may be a conservative free thinker. . . not you it would seem, with your complete disregard here. . . the Republican Party has been taking more and more steps to kick out moderates and embrace the Christian Right position. This is well documented.But that has nothing to do with my opinion of Moore's film. Liberal or Conservative his film is a web of lies and distortion. Its simply appauling. Name five. God! Give up the ghost people! Fox News even gave this film a good review.

[Sineed]

Okay, I finally saw the movie of lies.
Good for you for being open-minded enough to see the movie. But ... which lies do you mean?
He didn't show the bodies of our own citizens who were butchered by the terrorists that were in bed with Saddam.
Sigh ... there is NO EVIDENCE that there was any connection between Saddam and the 9/11 terrorists. Why do so many people believe this still??

A lot of the information presented by Michael Moore has already been corroborated by many sources; he doesn't tell us much that's new. It's his manner of presentation that's innovative. And yeah, he does take a lot of cheap shots that are very entertaining to us lefties, but not very useful for converting dissenters to his point of view.

And if you make a lot of money as a documentary filmmaker, it's a fluke, like winning the lottery. Michael had to beg for funds to make Roger and Me. If he'd set out to get rich, there were more certain ways. Think of a certain single mom on welfare, writing her first novel in a cafe with her baby on her lap. And now she's richer than the queen, and people criticize her for it, too. But generally, most children's book writers, or creative people of all sorts, don't make a lot of money.

[lepetitarsenic]

I absolutely loathed "Bowling For Columbine".

I live in Littleton, Colorado, and it made me sick... physically sick to watch Michael Moore use what happened in my town to try to foist some knee-jerk neo-'liberal' propaganda on the public. He sits there, smug and ridiculously egotistical in front of that camera pretending to actually care about victims and the families of victims, all the while counting up in his head how many minds he can manipulate over to his party (quite as flawed as the republican party, if not more) in that vile little head of his.

I'm an anti-Bush conservative (yes, we do exist, we're called libertarians... lovely little third party, big on freedom, not so big on partisanship or propaganda, do look us up) and have always been and shall continue to be anti-nation building, i.e Iraq. I still can't stand the man, or his ideas.

Nothing excuses obscuring the truth or manipulating facts, especially not in the world of documentaries. I find the man truly dispicable, attempting to take a moral 'high ground' while down slinging mud among the very people he should be attempting to rise above, if he thinks so well of himself. I can't think of anything more harmful to the political world at large... the last thing we need right now is more partisanship and blind antagonism between the republicans and the democrats, since Americans on the whole seem to be too lazy or closed-minded to take a third party seriously.

Ugh. This makes me terribly frustrated in case you can't tell, sorry for getting so emotional.

[~Tonks~]

Funny how the country and the government that Moore portrays as being full of a bunch of sneaky, distrustful swindlers and inept, tuned out morons are the very vehicle that allows him to make his movies and make such an insane profit.

He's laughing all the way to the bank.

[Hagrid442]

It's not quite true that Saddam didn't have any connections with Al-Qaeda. Don't let the news headlines of last week fool you. He DID. However, he wasn't in bed with them either. It was rather a nuanced and complex situation. What the 9/11 Commission found was that yes, Saddam did have some contact with Al-Qaeda operatives. But, he did not have much of a working relationship with them.

This lack of nuance is what is hurting American politics nowadays. Even Kerry jumped on that headline last week. However, if he admits to there being something that doesn't agree with the Left's position, then he'll be seen as a "flip-flopper" again.

[Ragdrazi]

I'm an anti-Bush conservative (yes, we do exist, we're called libertarians... lovely little third party, big on freedom, not so big on partisanship or propaganda, do look us up) and have always been and shall continue to be anti-nation building, i.e Iraq. I still can't stand the man, or his ideas. Ah! Good to have you aboard the discussion. Though perhaps you should be more specific for the good people playing along at home. There are major differences between conservatives and libertarians. For instance libertarians do not believe in any real governmental oversight of personal behavior that doesn’t harm others. Nothing excuses obscuring the truth or manipulating facts, especially not in the world of documentaries. I find the man truly dispicable, attempting to take a moral 'high ground' while down slinging mud among the very people he should be attempting to rise above, if he thinks so well of himself. I can't think of anything more harmful to the political world at large... the last thing we need right now is more partisanship and blind antagonism between the republicans and the democrats, since Americans on the whole seem to be too lazy or closed-minded to take a third party seriously. Agreed. Completely. Though I think you and I would probably take that last sentence in different directions. Funny how the country and the government that Moore portrays as being full of a bunch of sneaky, distrustful swindlers and inept, tuned out morons are the very vehicle that allows him to make his movies and make such an insane profit.


He's laughing all the way to the bank. That statement makes no sense. I don’t know what you mean by the word vehicle. Also, you say country, and that seems a pretty clear indication that you think Moore hates America. He does not. No liberal does. There a tremendous difference between loving America and working to change its problems, and hating America. Because so many people think that the only way to love the place where you come from is with blind acceptance, this gets lost on them. It's not quite true that Saddam didn't have any connections with Al-Qaeda. Well you’re right, of course. And I did know this. The thing is, when your opponent is claming such a substantial relationship that it is cause for war, it really polarizes your rhetoric in the opposite. But yes, for the record, apparently there were meetings between al-Qaeda and Saddam. Apparently, if I remember correctly, Saddam was asking al-Qaeda for help. All indications are that this went no where, and the reasons for that are pretty simple. Al-Qaeda has its heart set on a Muslim Super-State. Saddam had his heart set on a Saddam Super-State, though he lacked the tools to even begin to try to start to try to bring this about. (Or in Bush’s immortal words what he had going were “weapons of mass destruction related program activities” which is fun to say five times fast) Saddam did not care who you worshiped. In fact there has always been a vibrant, though ostracized, Christian minority in Iraq. This made Iraq a secular nation, which of course made Saddam an infidel in the eyes of bin Laden. In fact he called for his death on a number of occasions. More nuance if you need it: an al-Qaeda training camp was indeed found in Iraq. But it was in the Kurdish controlled area in the north of Iraq. An area which Saddam claimed, but had no control over, no ability to have helped them set up the camp.
Thing is, when you boil that all down and it still comes out to no evidence of the relationship the White House was looking for.
Anyway, the hilarious political cartoon of the situation can be found here:
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=14518

[Midnightsfire]

Okay, I finally saw the movie of lies.
What exactly were the lies?

The scene that so many of you are talking about (President Bush recieving the news of the attack) wasn't him being confused. He was proccesing what his next move was going to be.
Your opinion. Quick decisive action was needed and he failed miserably in that. (My opinion.)

Nothing excuses obscuring the truth or manipulating facts, especially not in the world of documentaries.
Documentaries do not equate to journalism. The purpose of documentaries are to present a point of view based on film footage, which Moore is a master at. And add that to the fact that Moore has expressly stated his agenda with the film is to oust Bush, it's no wonder that when I read that there are voter registration tables at some cinemas where the movie was playing, they were doing a brisk business.

[Chrysalis]

I know this doesn't really belong here...but I have trouble differentiating between the American political angles. For instance, here in the Netherlands, a Liberal is right wing. He believes in as little government interference as possible, and the importance of the individual. A Conservative doesn't really exist here, I suppose they would be the small Christian parties. What's a Liberal in America, is here called a Socialist. What's the difference between Liberal and Democrat? And what's a Libertarian? I'm getting a bit confused here.

[lepetitarsenic]

Ah! Good to have you aboard the discussion. Though perhaps you should be more specific for the good people playing along at home. There are major differences between conservatives and libertarians. For instance libertarians do not believe in any real governmental oversight of personal behavior that doesn’t harm others.

Thank you! And I suppose I ought to say we'd argue that we are the real conservatives, while the modern republican party are... well, mostly idiots, and dangerous ones at that.


http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=14518

That was hilarious. For the record, I despise the Bush propaganda machine just as equally as I do the Moore... likely more so, as I'd expect behavior with further morality from our president, who seems to have supplied none. There is quite a difference between being an enraged citizen and a corrupt (in a manner of speaking) figure of authority, and I think most would agree that any improper action comitted by the second is of much greater importance.

[Master Qui-Gon]

I know this doesn't really belong here...but I have trouble differentiating between the American political angles. For instance, here in the Netherlands, a Liberal is right wing. He believes in as little government interference as possible, and the importance of the individual. A Conservative doesn't really exist here, I suppose they would be the small Christian parties. What's a Liberal in America, is here called a Socialist. What's the difference between Liberal and Democrat? And what's a Libertarian? I'm getting a bit confused here.

Well, the term "liberal" in Europe is describing a person who believe the goverment should not interfer at all in economics. In other words, a supporter of capitalism. Right-wing.

As far as I've understood it, "liberal" in the US is describing a person who wants change, wants to develop the world foward. "Conservative" is more of a person who wants to keep things as they are and have always been.

"Liberal" in the US does not equal "socialist" in Europe, because socialism is first and foremost an economic system that puts the goverment in control of economics, because of the opinion that the goverment can distribute wealth and resources much more fair than greedy speculators.

And besides, what's considered "left" in US is considered "centre" in Europe. "Left" in Europe would be "extreme left, to the borders of communism" in the US.

[Chrysalis]

Thanks for explaining that.:)

I suppose a European Liberal would be called Libertarian in the USA. Not Conservative I think, because European Liberals don't oppose abortion and homosexuality. A Christian-Democratic party might be considered slightly more conservative, I think, although they're supposed to be centrists most of the time.

[Midnightsfire]

I know this doesn't really belong here...but I have trouble differentiating between the American political angles. For instance, here in the Netherlands, a Liberal is right wing. He believes in as little government interference as possible, and the importance of the individual. A Conservative doesn't really exist here, I suppose they would be the small Christian parties. What's a Liberal in America, is here called a Socialist. What's the difference between Liberal and Democrat? And what's a Libertarian? I'm getting a bit confused here.Liberal is left-wing here.

The Democratic Party is considered to be the more liberal party, and the Republican, the more conservative. Democrats generally believe that government has an obligation to provide social and economic programs for those who need them. Republicans are not necessarily opposed to such programs but believe they are too costly to taxpayers. Republicans put more emphasis on encouraging private enterprise in the belief that a strong private sector makes citizens less dependent on government.

Of course that's today.

Ironically, liberal and Libertarian are at opposing ends. Liberal=Left. Conservative=Right.

The Green Party is considered left of the Democratic Party, usually focused more on governmental oversight. Libertarian Party is considered right of the Republican Party, usually focused more on deregulation and what they define as "more personal freedom." (And preferred among big business.)

Of course this is just might take on things. I'm sure someone may disagree...

(Oh, and as for abortion and homosexuality, the Democratic Party is that one that usually supports such as opposed to the Republican Party, President Bush's party.)

[Chrysalis]

Thanks for explaining that, Midnight.:)

Here, Libertarian would be considered left of Republican. Because here Libertarian(there's no such word here for that) = Liberal = right of center. The Republican Party relies so heavily on the influence of religion that it would be considered more right-wing than any Libertarian party.

The most left wing party in the Netherlands is the Socialist Party. The Greens are just a little less left wing. The Labour party has gone from a traditional party for the working class to an almost Libertarian party.

The Christian Democrats are hardly believable. The claim to be center, which is a euphemism for not having any particular points of view at all. Upon reading their political essays on their website I still cannot figure out what exactly they stand for.

[Auror Williamson]

Hmmm, I want to see this piece of propaganda known as "Fahrenheit 911" to see what the ultra-left is actually thinking...but I don't want a cent of my money going to Moore. I'll wait.


Some things that Moore supporters and fans might be interested in:

Moore Registered Voter in Michigan and New York (Illegally) and Claims to be Independent Despite his Official Affiliation of "Democratic" (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0628041moore1.html)

Ray Bradbury Demands Moore to Change Film Title (Bradbury's Original Work was "Fahrenheit 451") (http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040619/D83A0PJ00.html)


Moore said he has received more than 1,500 letters from American soldiers expressing opposition to the war and said he is considering compiling the letters into a book. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2004/06/13/MNG2K75D7S1.DTL&type=printable)

Personal Profit from Soldiers. Touching.


Fred Barnes: Moore Faked Interview With Me (http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/127ujhuf.asp)




Drudge Report:

DUDE, WHERE'S YOUR WEBSITE: MICHAEL MOORE OUT-SOURCING DESIGN, SERVER TO CANADA

Advocate Michael Moore may have released a book titled DUDE, WHERE'S MY COUNTRY?, and may have vaulted to stardom documenting worker's rights and corporate malfeasance in Flint, Michigan, but that has not stopped Moore from outsourcing his website design and servers -- to companies based in Canada!

Cannes-bound Moore, the great protector of the U.S. working class, has outsourced the design of his Web site to a foreign company in Canada, records show.

PLANK -- based in Montréal, Québec -- is the development and design company behind MichaelMoore.com.

Meanwhile, Moore's site is hosted by a foreign owned company, Webcore Labs, of Calgary, Alberta Canada. [Webcore does maintain an office in Beverly Hills, CA.]

Moore did not respond to repeated requests for comment.


Spinsanity on Moore (A Neutral **-O-Meter) (http://www.spinsanity.org/topics/#Pundits)

[Shauna]

Honestly, I can't wait to see what the public reaction is to F911. While it will, of course, be utterly biased, I think it will be an eye-opener for a lot of people.

Shauna

[Snapes_lovr]

How is F911 an eye opener? Its just Moore's opinion, nothing else!

[Adaron]

To be honest, I, under another name, was banned completely from iharrypotter.net's forums for being ridiculously offended by this topic. But the IHP.net thread was completely uncalled for in that instance. The things being said were not a discussion, but a fight in which I purposely got the thread closed by posting highly offensive things (to left wingers, that is).

I am happy to say that this thread seems quite civil and in lack of anyone that wants to just bash Pres. Bush, but rather people who like to share their opinions of F911 and Michael Moore.

I, personally, think Michael Moore is a brilliant filmmaker. But his topics are quite treasonous in my opinion, and also very biased and narrow-sighted. I will probably want to see F911, just because it's available. IF it's available. But it will not be an eye-opener, you can be sure of that.

Now, I would suggest that this kind of topic be avoided, personally, seeing as it created uncomfortable tension (and a personal vendetta between me and the IHP.net staff...mostly Scott, a moderator). But until it starts getting to the point where the spirit of Harry Potter is not reflected remotely, and we become bantering baffoons on a tyrate about partisan views and/or whether or not Michael Moore is right, I think there is a definite contrast between IHP.net and Mugglenet's CoS Forums. Kudos to Mugglenet!

[Midnightsfire]

But his topics are quite treasonous in my opinion, and also very biased and narrow-sighted. Treasonous? Explain please.



(No, Auror Wiliamson. My rebuttal to your post is forthcoming. Just not at the moment.)

[Adaron]

Treasonous? Explain please.



(No, Auror Wiliamson. My rebuttal to your post is forthcoming. Just not at the moment.)

Michael Moore may have his opinion, but to openly say that your country's leader is, well, incompetent (in nutshell), is like trying to start a revolution. The government, although no democrats, would say the same thing. That sounds treason to me. But I'm not gonna push the point, because it's a very strong thing to say, and maybe someone could take it a little overboard.

But treasonous is the only word that fits... Since, after all, if he took a further step with his ideals, he could be charged with it.

[stravinsky]

fahrenheit 9/11 was basically michael moore presenting us with a bunch of facts and leading the audience to side with his opinion. For example, it is not a fact that the Bush administration cares more for the Saudis than Americans, yet Michael Moore lead us to believe so. His interviews and footage were informed us on only one side of the situation. I find it sad that the woman who lost her son was only anti-bush after she lost her son. If her son had not died, she would have never changed her position. Also, in this film, moore depicts Iraq as being free before America invaded Iraq's lands. The fact is eitherway the people of iraq suffered greatly (whether it was caused by Saddam's tyranny or the US invasion).

Moore, although his opinion is very biased, did make a lot of good points on how the lower class is kept uneducated and left without any help. (the entire ordeal on recruiting soldiers) But he did not go about on how to make a difference and change the ways that oppress the backbone of our society. Basically Moore told us a everything that is wrong with the Bush administration and our society, but did not tell us to vote or expand on these issues. He made a big joke out of serious political issues that left us all a little pensieve, but that is it. How many American people are actually willing to go out there and make a difference? not too many. Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 was more entertaining than a call to action, sadly.

the irony of seeing this movie was the couple sitting next to me. Middle-aged, may I add. Laughing yet outraged, saying, "and these people represent us?!" Of course, as they left the theater they threw all their popcorn and drinks down on the floor, purposely, and left the theater. How can you expect to be represented well if you yourself dont respect the environment and society we live in? this entire michael moore in theater experience was frustrating. Now people will get only one liberals perspective on the issue, and what a liberal he is =\ It 's a true shame!

[Bhodi]

Michael Moore may have his opinion, but to openly say that your country's leader is, well, incompetent (in nutshell), is like trying to start a revolution. The government, although no democrats, would say the same thing. That sounds treason to me. But I'm not gonna push the point, because it's a very strong thing to say, and maybe someone could take it a little overboard.

But treasonous is the only word that fits... Since, after all, if he took a further step with his ideals, he could be charged with it.

Couldn't disagree with you more... Go back and read the First Amendment, please. The main purpose for its existence is, of course, to protect individual citizens who wish to criticize our government. Michael Moore's movie could certainly be considered treasonous if we were still living in the American colonies under the rule of George III, but not under our Constitutional law.

And this is coming from someone (me) who disagrees with Moore's perspectives on quite a few issues (the Iraq War included)... I find him talented and entertaining, but take all of his work with a very hefty grain of salt. That said, he has every right to produce a film critical of the government, and I'd be the first in line to support his right to do so. If Moore were to lose that right and be labeled a traitor, we'd all lose that right (and that would not be a good thing).

[Shauna]

Snapes lovr--

Though it may only be Michael Moore's opinion, much of it is backed up with solid fact (unlike a lot of the theories I see circulating around the HP portion of these boards...:rolleyes:). I don't think a lot of Americans (my parents, for example) realize everything that is going on.

I don't claim to know everything that is going on, either. But the American government (both Republican and Democrat alike) has fooled the public too many times for me to take everything they spin out at face value.

Shauna

[Auror Williamson]

But the American government (both Republican and Democrat alike) has fooled the public too many times for me to take everything they spin out at face value.

Michael Moore is 300 X better at spinning the issues that either political party. And that statement, unlike 99% of Moore's statements, is rooted in the facts.

[PrtVeela]

Michael Moore is 300 X better at spinning the issues that either political party. And that statement, unlike 99% of Moore's statements, is rooted in the facts.

I don't think that Moore is better then any political party at spinning the issues. Moore stated that his film was made because he wanted to swing the 'swing voters' vote. I don't think that's hiding anything. (He said this at the premiere in Washington). He also came right out and said that he wanted it released close to the Republican convention. I don't think any politician would have been so forethcoming. I mean lets face it, you've got to be able to spin things in order to be in politics, its not a pretty fact, but its a fact nonetheless.

Now am I stating that I agree with every single thing Micheal Moore says, or take everything he says as fact, no. Just as I don't take any news report as complete fact. You always have to further research anything you hear, and even more so if you are going to let that thing make up your mind about something as important as an election.

Despite Moore being left leaning, this does not mean that he does not raise points that are valid and true, and despite your personal animoisty for him, I truly think that F 9/11 is a film everyone should see. It doesn't have to change your vote, but its always a good idea to get another perspective. (Hence why I never just watch one News Channel or read just one news paper;) )

[Ragdrazi]

If you all wouldn’t type so much in one day. . . Documentaries do not equate to journalism. The purpose of documentaries are to present a point of view based on film footage, which Moore is a master at. Well. . . yes, but such footage must be an accurate representation of what ever the documentarian says it is. But no, documentaries such as these are a perfectly legitimate form of journalism. They fall under the lines of an exposé, which is completely fine journalistically. People have been throwing a tantrum just because this film has a thesis, and that’s really ridiculous. I know this doesn't really belong here...but I have trouble differentiating between the American political angles. For instance, here in the Netherlands, a Liberal is right wing. He believes in as little government interference as possible, and the importance of the individual. A Conservative doesn't really exist here, I suppose they would be the small Christian parties. What's a Liberal in America, is here called a Socialist. What's the difference between Liberal and Democrat? And what's a Libertarian? I'm getting a bit confused here. So, I know it’s already been kind of answered. But I’ve made you a helpful chart! The underlined two are the only two in power currently.

http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2004-6/749818/fsdj.JPG
Quote:
http://www.workingforchange.com/comic.cfm?itemid=14518

That was hilarious. Thank you. Tom Tomorrow is truly the only reason human beings have not been wiped out by the aliens yet. :) More can be found at: www.thismodernworld.com (http://www.thismodernworld.com/)
How is F911 an eye opener? Its just Moore's opinion, nothing else! Do you read anything that is written to you?Michael Moore may have his opinion, but to openly say that your country's leader is, well, incompetent (in nutshell), is like trying to start a revolution. No it isn’t. Else every presidential candidate. . . um. . . ever. . . you see where I am going. Also, in this film, moore depicts Iraq as being free before America invaded Iraq's lands. The fact is eitherway the people of iraq suffered greatly (whether it was caused by Saddam's tyranny or the US invasion). That’s a tricky one. But you have to look at it like this, because this is how the international community tends to look at these things. This is also, as I understand it, is also the way the Iraqis themselves look at it. (I hasten to mention www.riverbendblog.blogspot.com (http://www.riverbendblog.blogspot.com/) because no one is real sure if it is real) Before the war, you were. . . basically free under Saddam. Not free to speak out against Saddam, no no no. But you could control that. You just don’t speak out against Saddam and everything’s fine. (Now I know a lot of you are going to counter with that whole, he gassed his own people non-sense. The truth of that matter is the people our politicians are talking about there are the Kurds and others who have risen up against Saddam. Really it all goes back to the, if you didn’t speak out you didn’t have a problem thing.) Now the Iraqi people are getting shot in the streets, and they are under a government they didn’t elect, which has no real power at all. So, yeah, you total that one up, and they were better off under Saddam. . . at least for the time being.How many American people are actually willing to go out there and make a difference? not too many. Me.