I doubt it. Memories are short. Otherwise, no one would believe campaign promises.
Andrew Bolt is essentially Australia’s equivalent to Ann Coulter only dumber and not so worthy of starring in sleazy porn flicks. My all time favourite quote of his was his comparing environmentalists to nazis with the immortal line “Mother Earth, fatherland, its all the same”. In the particular article you link to there isn’t an original idea from his head, he is simply regurgitating the davekopel article.
The newspaper is as reliable as any of the other trashy Murdoch tabloids.
So that’s your idea of objectivity is it?
First, you posited a stance which was in no way objective itself, in any sense of the word. You even suggested that people that might find fault with your cite don’t even go there. Then, when it is debunked in less time than it takes to sneeze, you decide that this is evidence of protesting too much and decide to take your ball home. Better still, you declare that MM is ‘a loonie’ and therefore no doubt plan to set off to try to debunk him another way.
SDMB posters have outlined (again and again) that MM is obviously presenting facts in such a way as to make his political point. This isn’t uncommon in satire - somewhat ironically, it’s also what leading world governments do time and time again.
In additon, to suggest that someone is dangerous because they are presenting a polarised version of history as you’ve been told is not objective, it’s meaningless. How is MM harming you, or your country?
I am not a MM Sympathiser/Barbarian at all - for example, I bought Stupid White Men and gave up halfway through because of what I felt was meaningless ranting. I also watch Fox News to keep up with what their message is, and to see how it contradicts the British media view. All in all, I try my best to keep a rational balanced outlook and weigh up everything on its own merits. Not that I’m a paragon of virtue - but perhaps you might just do the same?
In other words, what **Somnambulist ** said!
Although I have to agree with **Lib ** too - in that I have lost a lot of faith in the British media/people for not taking Blair and cronies apart over the whole affair. I suspect if it all happened again, we’d still pony along. Probably as a result of having no opposition in Govt.
You & Lib may be right there, I’m not sure. I guess it’s debateable and the issue probably belongs in another thread…
I’ve been staying away from Moore threads recently because Fahrenheit 9/11 still hasn’t opened in Japan, so I don’t feel I can add much to the discussion of that film.
However, I have been wanting to point something out to those who keep ranting about what a liar he is and posting links like the one in the OP.
You are making Moore look good! You have only served to raise my opinion of him! If Moore “disciples” exist at all (and frankly, I have yet to meet one of these people who supposedly treats his every word as the gospel truth), then you have played a role in creating them!
Nothing Moore has ever done or said himself has done more to convince me of his basic honesty than the many straw-grasping criticisms of his honesty have. If he’s such a liar, people should have been able to come up with something a little more significant by now. Every time I see one of these threads I become more and more convinced of Moore’s basic integrity, something I had no particular faith in prior to the hubbub over Bowling for Columbine. I’d enjoyed Moore’s work since “TV Nation”, but I always thought of it as political humor/satire and didn’t hold it to the standards of serious journalism. Turns out Moore does a much better job of checking his facts than most of his detractors, though.
This quote is completely irrelevant to the discussion over whether or not funding for counter-terrorism was cut. If you do a little research on appropriations numbers you’ll see that the counter-terrosism fund within the Dept. of Justice was never cut. The President’s budget request (and, consequently, any recommendations made by Ashcroft) has little to do with the actual amount of money appropriated. When Bush came into office, he came in midway through Fiscal Year 2001. The funding for the counter terrorism fund in that fiscal year was $4,989,000,000. In Fiscal Year 2002 (the first year Bush had any say over appropriations) the fund was at $4,989,000,000. As you can see, it was level-funded, not cut. If Moore did indeed say that the fund was cut, then he was wrong.
You can go here for a cite: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/approp/approplink.html
Until now, the most apt metaphor that had occurred to me was the falsified “documentary” in the Babylon 5 episode “The Illusion of Truth”. This one has the advantage of being more widely recognizable.
“Who doesn’t know that Saddam was a bad guy? The media did a wonderful job hammering that home every day in order to convince the public that they should support the war… Anyone who takes that and says that I’m trying to say that Saddam’s Iraq was some utopia is just a crackpot.”
–Michael Moore, Entertainment Weekly, 7/9/2004
Puh-leeze. This is equivalent to a flat-earther asserting that he doesn’t have to honestly address the arguments that the earth is round because the latter are sufficiently well known.
Err, no it isn’t. Not in the slightest. For your analogy to hold true, please state what arguments you feel that Moore is not ‘honestly addressing’ in his statement? I assume you have read the linked article and the question that prompted this response.
This is what I call a not-lie. It’s variant of the negative pregnant. You know, it’s ‘technically correct’.
While I can see how the term could gain acceptance among those who already have an inclination to do so, it’s a pretty weak case that Moore’s name deserves such direct association with the concept. It’s not as if he were the orignator, or even a relatively notable practitioner. There’re definitely those in the US who I would bet are much more skilled (can’t say because I’m unfamiliar with Moore’s workexcept through second and third hand reports).
If one has a nose for such things, then one has had one’s nose full of such stench for quite a while now, esp re the case for the invasion of Iraq.
One fundamental way this is different from the ‘flat-earther’ analogy you’ve offered is that this an artist discussing what he meant in his art as opposed to a discussion of science. You talk of reconciling facts. Mr. Moore’s statement is about what his intention was. Better analogy would’ve had a more literary bent.
It’s worth noting that you chose to exclude this from the quote:
“For 20 seconds in this film, I become essentially the only person to say, I want you to take a look at the human beings that were living in Iraq in 2003. The ones that we were going to bomb indiscriminately.”
Can’t help but wonder why you’d leave out the meat of the matter.
A discussion of your intentions may make a better analogy for your discussion of Moore’s intentions.
Is it fair to assume that your argument is the equivalent of “a flat-earther asserting that he doesn’t have to honestly address the arguments that the earth is round because the latter are sufficiently well known?”
You didn’t “honestly address” Moore’s statement of what he was trying to communicate through te images that he mentions.
Or, were your intentions different than that?
I can’t believe you dub this a “Moore-sim” with a straight face! I dub it a “Bushism”.
(1) You never actually say that Saddam was behind 9/11, you just imply it and continually link the two in speeches to the point where many (most?) Americans believe it to be true.
(2) You constantly mix up the order of things, e.g., by saying things like “We know he has WMDs, he used them to gas his own people” without bothering to say that the use of WMDs goes back to before the original Gulf War when he was our friend and that the question is not whether he once had them but whether he still has them.
I think what Bush supporters are so upset about is that Michael Moore in some sense “beat Bush at his own game”…I.e., he used the same sort of innuendo and selective telling of the facts that Bush did to create implications. The difference is that Moore is at least up-front about the fact that he is partisan and the film represents his views on 9/11 and the Iraq war whereas the Bush Administration is trying to pass off their stuff as objective proof that we should base national policy on.
I liked some aspects of Moore’s film although overall I prefer a film like, “Uncovered: The Whole Truth about the Iraq War” to really give a straighter accounting of things
At any rate, I have no idea why there seems to be a higher standard applied to a film-maker than there is for the President of the United States and his minions.
As is quite obvious to those who are not being wilfully obtuse, the argument is that Moore selectively presented “Potemkin Village Happy Happy Joy Joy” images of Saddam’s Iraq.
Agree with the war or not, but as far as military policy, it’s not to bomb barber shops and weddings and cafes and little kids indiscriminately.
It’s always stressed that the military goes to lengths to not attack civilian targets.
Is Moore really saying that their goal was to indiscriminately drop bombs on little kids with kites?
Don’t know, but I very much doubt it. Moore is out there in many ways, but I don’t think thats it.
More like it is, as emphasized here, that injury and death to the innocent civilian is entirely unavoidable, its going to happen. I have no doubt, none whatsoever, that our armed forces are the best trained and most humane fighting force on the planet. Bar none.
But that means good intentions. And the fact remains that some unknown number of Iraqis are dead now who wouldn’t be otherwise, figures vary, but center around roughly 10,000.
Moore is not suggesting that these were people living in paradise, kids flew kites in Stalin’s Russia, and Hitler’s Germany. Only that they were alive. Are they now? And was our need for war so impelling that no other choice was available. No other choice is the difference between the regretable and the obscene.
There are reports that Rumsfeld had to approve any operation that had a substantial risk of such “collateral damage”, that some dozens fit that category, and that he approved every single one.
Didn’t SimonX just cover this? Moore wasn’t trying to say everything was peachy-keen in Iraq, he was trying to show images of the human beings in Iraq that we bombed - sort of a “B”-grade horror movie device of showing children playing while disaster looms. If you want to slam Moore for appealing to blatant emotionalism, I think it’s a valid charge, and he does it in several places in the film. But he never said that Saddam’s Iraq was a great place. It wasn’t a documentary about Saddam. I mean, my God - haven’t we learned enough about Saddam? Moore is pointing out that those bombs fell on real human beings, not monsters.