I was with the anti-war group till just a couple of hours ago. I was of the tenet “Its just wrong to invade a country”. I cant explain it; it was (and still is) one of my beliefs.
I then saw Bowling for Columbine. I am now of the opinion that America is doing nothing new. Its been doing stuff like this for ages. You just reap what you sow. Theres nothing anybody can about it cause people have short memories.
I can go about my life now cause this Iraq war is nothing new.
I am not sure where this thread should go; Iam putting it here cause it might get out of hand. please move it if it belongs elsewhere. Thanks!
Michael Moore, loveable lug though he may be, is not the sort of fella you want to exclusively base your opinions about things that matter on. He’s sort of a bizarro-world Rush Limbaugh. “Just an entertainer, folks.”
If you want to really reinforce your sense of déjà vu, check out The Panama Deception.
Objectivity is unattainable-- no doubt the truth is somewhere between sources like these and the sort of thing you’ll get from CNN.
Yeah, Michael Moore needs to be taken with a large grain of salt, even if you are already liberal. He does make some good points in Bowling for Columbine, but at times he also seems to be really reaching (I hated the part with Dick Clark and that lady on welfare).
I don’t think he’s an outright mean-spirited liar like, say, Ann Coulter, but I also wouldn’t believe everything he says, either. Even a lefty like myself disagrees with him on pretty much everything economic.
However, I do think he makes excellent points in his opening to “Stupid White Men” about the election in 2000. There’s quite a bit in that book that made me say “Now wait a minute, dammit,” but I think he came up with the best condemnation of that presidential election than anyone.
The difference between Michael Moore and Rush Limbaugh (or Ann Coultier) is that Michael exaggerates, while Rush lies.
Take the opening bit in Bowling for Columbine, where Moore gets a gun from the bank after opening an account – the event was staged, since in reality you pick up the gun from another location. But the germ of the matter, that there’s a bank that gives away guns as promotional material, is essentially correct. Similarly, I doubt that the CIA specifically trained Osama bin Laden on how to fly jet liners into skyscrapers, but the core fact remains that the CIA did train the guy.
Compare that with Rush Limbaugh, who tosses out stuff like “France is opposed to the Iraq war because they get almost all of their oil from Iraq.” Sounds great, until you go and do some research and find out it’s 100% bogus (France gets four times more oil from Saudi Arabia).
They’re both entertainers, and they both require skepticism, but they’re not equals.
I find, as someone firmly liberal that if you start and end your education with Michael Moore, then you are bound to end up misinformed. He is useful, however, as a jumping off point. If you go and investigate the issues he raises, you’ll end up learning a lot. MM’s good, but look beyond his arguments to gain a better appreciation of the issues.
That said, I do have a lot of respect for him, for the passion he shows, his seemingingly unstoppable belief that one man can make a difference and for all the times that he has shown that to be true. I also respect him for making us think about things that aren’t thought about as much as they should be.
But always remember that he is first and foremost an entertainer. His word should not be taken as gospel.
His word should not be taken for granted but what I think ramesh is mainly talking about is the montage sequence of the movie that shows Iran, Nicaragua etc.
I don’t really think this is a clear case of exaggeration vs. lie. Rush’s apparent point is that France is opposed to the war for economic reasons and he exaggerates the economic incentive – but France does get oil from Iraq.
Moore’s point is there is a bank that gives guns as an incentive and exaggerates how it is done – but they do give out guns.
I don’t care for either of the guys, but I don’t think the exaggerate vs. lie analysis is that clear.
This is a total canard. If you actually saw the film, then you saw an employee of the bank bragging to Moore that not only was the bank, itself, a licensed gun dealer but that they had several hundred guns in their vault.
There are some minor aspects to the film that are in questionable taste (Dick Clark ambush) or have been factually disputed (Moore repeatedly claims that the Columbine killers went bowling on the morning before the aassault. This may not be true) but the bank scene was on the up and up.
No-one’s yet mentioned the most egregiously bad aspect of that film.
When Michael Moore is trying to contrast the US with Canada, he
knocks on some doors in Canada, which are all unlocked. This supposedly shows that people live in fear less in Canada than in the US.
Unfortunately, surely they only showed the cases which fit with the point Moore was trying to put across
My 22-year-old self loved ROGER AND ME, until I did a stint as a receptionist in a temp job. When I was the poor slob having to keep the boss from wasting his precisely scheduled time, the idea of having a loudmouth baseball-cap wearing guy shoving his way into the building seemed a little less radical.
I do remember one bit, in the short-lived but fun TV NATION, where Michael had a white ex-con and Yaphet Kotto trying to hail cabs to show the racial disparities in–uhm–cab-getting. They finally had poor Yaphet holding flowers and a doll wrapped up like a baby, and still 30% less cabs stopped for him than for the greasy ex-con! It made the point very nicely.
However, even though Moore did point out towards the end that lots of cabs had indeed stopped for Yaphet, he left out two things that might have made a difference. That summer had been a particularly dangerous one for cabdrivers in NYC-I can’t find the exact cite, but I believe 5 or 6 had been summoned or hailed and sent to “bad” neighborhoods, predominantly minority, and the drivers had been killed and robbed. Also, Moore didn’t ask why the darker-skinned cabdrivers were ALSO giving Yaphet a pass as much as the white ones.
It made me think and then not take Moore all that seriously anymore. As for the whole Merkuns love guns thing, not that I want to hijack the thread, but I have lived 38 years on this earth seeing my uncle’s hunting rifles and nothing more. Where was the idyllic small town and more innocent time I grew up in? The Bronx. In the 1970’s.
Wether or not the gun scene played out as edited, isn’t it a little odd to cite the guy saying “it’s true” for evidence it’s true?
Maybe he did walk out of the bank with the gun, but he’s lied about enough stuff that I question his veracity. For instance, he made up the whole story about Bush secretly flying the bin ladens out of the country during the flight restrictions.
Geez, he exaggerates, sure, but there’s no way that he is the equivalent of Rush.
Of course. It was a joke. The little montage wasn’t seriously meant as proof that people feel safer in Canada - it was just an oppurtunity to see Michael Moore barging in on people in their houses. “Thankyou for not shooting me!”
So it’s OK to not provide a service to someone on the basis of their race as long as people of that race have committed crimes recently? If I work at a service station, should I refuse to serve white guys after hearing that a couple of caucasians have been holding up the stations recently?
Just because a sherriff says something doesn’t make it true either. There are obviously conflicting reports on this. If, while filming the movie, Moore was told by five different witnesses, including a teacher, that Klebold and Harris went bowling that morning, then it was a reasonable thing for him to include in the movie. He didn’t just make it up, it was a well supported version of events which was current in the community.
Spinsanity attempts to take the spin out of things; they castigate all sides of the political spectrum. Take a look at some of their other articles.
Personally, I think MM is just trying to make money, period.
I think it’s reasonable to discuss the veracity of the source. If ramesh had decided to support the war because of something Rush Limbaugh said would you have a problem if people challenged the veracity of the source?
