Prior to this year Gore Vidal lived in Europe for 4 decades. Besides which, Keanu Reeves is better known than Derek Jacoby, but few would agree that this makes him the better actor or “the only person who makes decent movies”.
Are you claiming that Gore Vidal is more widely known abroad than Michael Moore? Did someone say or imply that MM was “the only person who makes decent movies”? This thread isn’t so complicated that you have an excuse for not keeping up; this is what you were responding to:
What I was saying was the Michael Moore seems to be one of the best-known left-wing critics out there. I just got back from living in Central America and a lot of people I knew were talking about Bowling from Columbine. I’m sure many people there were surprised to find out that many Americans are critical of those aspects of American society, because you don’t hear about certain issues in the mainstream media.
(WARNING! LINK IS NOT WORK SAFE!)
I think the Bush composite is an appropriate and poignant reminder.
For sheer genius, though, this one of John Ashcroft takes the prize.
(WARNING! LINK IS NOT WORK SAFE!)
You should catch Randi Rhodes on Air America Radio sometime – she was yelling at her audience the other day, “Don’t trust me! Don’t trust anybody! Go out, do the research, and draw your own conclusions! All I do is give you something to look for!”
Whatever your political affiliations are, you gotta admit that’s damn good advice.
That IS genius. 
I totally agree
Wait, let’s not go overboard here. A lot of things have changed since 9/11 but Moore is not one of them. He was a jerk before then and he is still a jerk. I just don’t think this particular instance proves anything one way or another.
I also love the quote from the Notebooks of Lazarus Long:
Of course verifying doesn’t make anybody a “weasel”. Question is, what to do upon uncovering a discrepancy in numbers? One can go to the source and see immediately that discrepancy is honestly explained and proper number is prominently displayed, or one can start calling everybody’s attention to the discrepancy without bothering to check for explanation first. The latter would be done by someone trying to show off or having an ulterior motive. I think in either case the term “weasel” is appropriate.
Well, what I did was say:
I only pointed out correctly the difference, and what the page said.
Of course, I do also have some opinions as to whether or not it is respectful to use the pictures of the dead in this way. However, this is most certainly not the place to discuss that.
Not to answer for UncleBeer here, but not when the photo is hotlinked to a page which is a blatant advertisement for Michael Moore’s new book.
It is self-promotion, plain and simple. “See this neato edgy leftist photo? Cool, huh? Now buy my book!”
I actually wonder what MM is worth. I suspect it’s enough to cast serious doubt on his “hatred” of corporate America and capitalism in general, otherwise he wouldn’t be hocking his book like a snake oil salesman.
I don’t ever recall Michael Moore espousing a hatred of capitalism. Do you consider harmful labour practices fundamentally indivisible from a free-market economy?
Based on what the man considers useful links, he seems to be advocating for folks educating themselves about how to make informed choices for working within a capitalist democracy in a beneficial way.
I don’t see anything to suggest he would prefer some other economic model. I looked all over the place for revolutionary manifestos, directions to working communes, or even a simple exposition on the practicality of an anarcho-syndicalist system, and the manifold benefits that it offers the labouring class.
Nope, as near as I can make out, Big Mike (like a lot of people) seems to agree that a democratic, capitalist society is the best system that we have been able to work out so far.
If you think a desire to hold onto the necessary gains the working class fought so hard to earn in the early part of the last century makes someone a bally bolshy, then, uh…
Wave the Red Flag high!
Or something.
I am confused.
The OP is ostensibly against MM. Most responses approve of that.
But it was against MM based on certain picture. Most responses approve of the picture.
I am confused (and full of wine).
I’ll bet you’d put a 9mm slug in his burning head, though. Wouldn’t you Machetero? If you could get the bullets at the Kmart, that is.
Look closely at this controversial image…
Fact: The resolution of this image will increase greatly in the upcoming, minutes/hours/days/months/years. George W. Bush will become more and more clear as the face behind the carnage as this picture is clearly resolved with new and needless American deaths.
Fact: The darkness in the background (behind George Bush) and the dark shadings/highlights of this montage will become more disproportionate and pronounced.
Fact: George W. Bush is a criminal.
That’s the home page for his web site. The ad for his book is merely the top thing on the page, and has been that way for a while now. Also note that Moore’s “War president” picture page includes a blurb that reads, “Click the image to go to my home page”, which is that thing with the book ad and the newspaper links and the other stuff.
Geez, is it that hard to comprehend?
Hmmm…let’s see what happens when you click on a link to Bill O’Reilly’s homepage?
Why, it’s top to bottom self promotion for all of Bill’s paying gigs! There is not one shred of politically relevant material or linkage on this index.htm! Does he really have anything relevant to say or is it just $pew for the highest bidder? I mean, I thought he was looking out for us!??
That Commie Michael Moore should take a page from the capitalist playbook and devote his entire index to CA$H MUNNY instead of cluttering it up with relevant material and protest crap!
This co-opting of the dead in pursuit of a (political) agenda they may not have supported, seems to be a modern trend.
You aren’t allowed to use someone’s name without their consent while they’re alive:
“Corporal Smith loves product A”
. . without fear of civil action against you, and it seems morally reprehensible that (that) person should be available to any and all agendas once killed:
“Corporal Smith died for corporate America”
Such is the morality of modern public life, it’s difficult to think the formal Estate and/or family of the dead shouldn’t have the same legal protection as would the dead had they not been killed – as it is, their memory seems available to all and sundries for whatever purpose suits.
Trailer park cheap and horribly disrespectful.
“Trailer park cheap and horribly disrespectful.”
Well, that is certainly an opinion.
Moore is an asshole that tries to walk upright like a man, but fails.
I imagine there are a lot of people who think that was a really cool thing to do. They’re assholes, too. That mosaic was sheer, utter disrespect for the service people who died for their country. But the assholes will blame Bush for their deaths, and at the same time totally ignore their own complicity in those deaths.
“Their own complicity in those deaths…” Hmmmmm. Kept the best for last, did you? Could you be a bit more specific? Who, exactly, these “assholes” are, and what, precisely, is the nature of thier “complicity”?
I quite agree that there are a number of “assholes” who are “complicit”. I suspect, however, that my list (Bush, Cheney, et. al.) might be different than yours.