Pin the ad on the hominem

This is to pit Airman Doors and his co-whiners at the feet of Michael Moore.

I used to have a lot of respect for Doors’ intelligence, if not his opinions, but this latest anti-Moore opera has lost him pretty much any credit he had left with me. For what that’s worth; not that I imagine it’s worth much.

But that’s OK, Doors will still focus on my, rather than what I’m saying. That’s the bray of the anti-F911 crowd: “but Moore’s a ___!” There’s an almost universal refusal to engage what Moore has said; only discussion of what he has not said is allowed in this “debate.”\

Where are the facts to contradict him? There aren’t many, and there certainly don’t seem to be enough to prove a consistent pattern of fabrication.

Holes in the story? fine, fill the holes, instead of singing whiny arias about them. Moore tells “half the story?” fine; tell the other half. He’s made his opening argument, so rebut.

If you’ve got nothing substantive to say then shut the fuck up. You only make yourselves look stupid when you tearfully attack only the messenger, and leave the message pretty well unscathed. Repeating myself here, this reminds of a scene in Buffy when Xander or someone was caught short without a witty riposte, and blurted out disdainfully, “Nice hair!” Needless to say, everyone simply laughed at him.

Nah. Ol’ Dave’s just a procupine with about half his quills inverted. Real trouble is, he’s finds himself more and more in agreement with liberals, but he still hates 'em just as much as he ever did. Just can’t stand 'em, can’t help it.

Not to worry. Parenting will take some of the starch out of him.

If you are going to pit someone, shouldn’t you put their name in title so they know it and have a chance to respond?

Moore is a tough nut to crack, for two reasons.

#1 “the truth” is not “the whole truth and nothing but the truth”. Facts can be presented in different ways to generate different reactions in your audience. For instance, President Bush took no immediate action upon learning about a plane crashing into the WTC. One side can play this as “Bush is a fucking dumbass who did nothing and let the rest of 9/11 happen without even trying to stop anything.” OR “Bush remained calm in a crisis and waited for there to be enough information to take action.” When a movie maker takes select facts and spins each of them the “fucking dumbass” way how does one refute that? It’s not easy, without looking like an apologist, that is, and your opponents can always say “you haven’t shown any of his claims to be false.”

#2 “You can’t comment if you haven’t seen the movie!” This one got trotted out a few times and it certainly sounds reasonable. However, let’s say (hypothetically) that someone creates a film that is nothing but a venomous hatchet job against a person you respect. Is it reasonable to demand that you give this mean spirited, hack movie maker $7 more profit just for the “right” to comment on the vomit spilled over the screen? Is it really your job to make his garbage a big commercial hit just so you can comment? It’s pretty hard to justify giving your hard earned money to someone who has done something you consider pretty damn crappy.

I glanced over that train wreck, there’s no damn way I’m gonna get into that mess, thankyouverymuch. I’ll just stick with my bland outside observations, and let everyone else piss and moan.

Well, there’s really no way to respond to this. You say I’ll attack Moore, and barring that I’ll attack you. Nope. I won’t do it.

As point of fact, This Year’s Model has offered to sponsor my viewing of the “documentary” in question, since on principle I won’t give Moore any of my money. So, by way of thanking him, I will go to see the movie with a notepad and pencil, take copious notes, and report back with my impressions, rebuttal, submission, whatever.

If you’re willing to stay tuned to this little drama, you’ll get my impressions of the film. And the best part? Nobody will be able to say anymore that “you didn’t see it, so you don’t know what you’re talking about!”. Of course, I freely admit that I’m going to watch the movie to skewer the bastard, but you know what? If I can’t I’ll take back everything that I have said. I’m not unreasonable.

Do us a favor and start a new thread rather than wading back into the existing one?

I’ll be seeing F911 tomorrow, assuming it isn’t sold out again before I get there.

Fair enough. I get the feeling that no matter what my thoughts are on the movie it’s gonna be a 10-page trainwreck, so I might as well steel myself for that.

No, not much. Nobody gonna say that, “unreasonable”. Nossir.

Here’s the thing of it: the movie no longer matters. Moore has made an event, the actual “movie” part of it is secondary, and may disappear altogether. Whats happening here, and in the tedia, the spasm of reaction to the movie is where the jazz is. And that’s what I’m watching.

I’m not interested in the movie anymore, not that I ever was that much interested. From what I’ve been reading from you guys, he doesn’t reveal any startling info, I pretty much know all this. The influence of the Saudis on American political life can be illustrated by the Bushes, but is by no stretch confined to the Bushes. The breaking news is exciting, an outraged recitation of events I am already aware of, who needs?

But the event is darned interesting. Show of hands, how many of you thought this movie would make this much of a stir, and sell that many tickets? Its kinda like the pushBush movement has a Rocky Horror icon to gather on. Will there be midnight showings with people showing up as thier favorite characters from F 9/11 and reciting choice lines in unison?

I’m a pessimist, I love surprises.

This is a bit problematic. How do you obtain the right to characterize it as a venemous hatchet job in the first place?

And by the way:

Good strategy, and I can wholeheartedly endorse the thinking behind it. But where, precisely, can I go to look over this train wreck myself?

Precisely here I believe.

Isn’t that just cognitive dissonance at work again? Or is it that lurching-towards-maturity-but-still-wanna-rebel-against-the-grownups phase all teenagers go through? :smiley:

slight hijack. I assume you’re in the crowd of Ann Coulter = Satan?

In the style of Michael Moore:
[…Fade In, Martin Luther King, Jr. giving his famous “I have a dream speech”…]

[…Segue to stock footage of King walking into Highlander Folk School with Miles Horton and Don West…]

Voiceover: What exactly was King’s dream? Was it to see people judge each other by the content of their character, or was it to incite riots with the help of his communist friends?

[…stock footage of race riots in the 1950s South…]

Voiceover: What was his purpose when he founded the Southern Christian Leadership Conference with his personal aide, convicted felon Bayard Rustin who had joined the Young Communist League at New York City College in 1936?

[…camera close-up of January 23, 1953 Los Angeles Times story on Rustin’s conviction and 2-year sentence…]

Voiceover: The SCLC says that it’s beginnings can be traced back to the Montgomery Bus Boycott in the 1950s. But can an organization formed by King be trusted to tell the truth? Why don’t we ask his own admirers.

[…head shot of David J. Garrow, a leftist academic…]

Interviewer: In “The Journal of American History”, June 1991, you wrote about King’s academic reputation. What did you say?

Garrow: “King’s academic compositions, especially at Boston University, were almost without exception little more than summary descriptions… and comparisons of other’s writings. Nonetheless, the papers almost always received desirable letter grades, strongly suggesting that King’s professors did not expect more.”

[…camera close-up of King’s doctoral dissertation, “A Comparison of the Conceptions of God in the Thinking of Paul Tillich and Harry Nelson Wieman” side-by-side with “The Place of Reason in Paul Tillich’s Concept of God”, the doctoral dissertation of Dr. Jack Boozer…]

Voiceover: There are, in fact, more than 50 complete sentences in the two compositions that are identical.

[…pan shot of the Martin Luther King Center for Nonviolent Social Change…]

[…fade in of “The Papers of Martin Luther King, Jr”, an official publication by the MLKCNSC…]

Voice reading from the publication: “Judged retroactively by the standards of academic scholarship, [his writings] are tragically flawed by numerous instances of plagiarism. Appropriated passages are particularly evident in his writings in his major field of graduate study, systematic theology.”

[…cut to field interview with homeless Black man at site of King’s speech…]

Interviewer: What has Martin Luther King, Jr. done for you?

Homeless man: […toothless laugh…] Fo’ me? Nuttin’. He make it hard fo’ me ‘cause da white man don’t want to help me no mo’.

[…cut to King stepping out of limousine to attend lavish party at White House…]

Voiceover: He may not have helped ordinary common people, but he certainly has helped himself to a lifestyle that most American’s can only dream about.

[…fade in of King’s smiling face as he bites into caviar snack…]

Voiceover: Maybe that was his dream.

Liberal, I’m still wary of being your newest fan. There’s about a 50-50 chance of me agreeing with you, and I subtract about 10 percentage points since you most likely don’t want me in your camp. But you were my inspiration of trying to be a better Doper.

That said, great friggin’ post. If you need help producing a documentary, lemme know.

This strikes me as a cop out. Moore is getting the price of admission as a result of you attending the movie. The fact that TYM is paying for it is irrelevant. If you are so principled as to deny Moore profit from your actions, you have failed. Cognitive dissonace is a bitch, idnit?

By pointing out what you’ve just pointed out. You’re just being whiny.

The point’s been made but it bears repeating. No doubt you get up unscaleable cliffs by tugging powerfully on your own bootstraps. You have a generator that runs a motor that turns the generator. And you know something is a venomous hatchet job, garbage and pretty damn crappy without seeing it, so you won’t go because its a venomous hatchet job, garbage etc.

That’s quite an honor. Thank you for saying it.

Though I should add that overall I agree with Liberal. If you are a lefty who thinks right wing shock jocks are rabid unethical assholes, not just because they are right wing but because of the twisted means they use to push their message, then to be fair you need to look at Moore with an equally sceptical eye and I don’t think he comes up smelling of roses. And that’s coming from a lefty.

I think the principle is that Airman doesn’t want to give Moore any of Airman’s money. I’ve gone with co-workers a couple of times to a restaurant that I despise, and won’t willingly give my money to. Each time a co-worker has bought my lunch so I would go with them. Is that a cop-out?

I don’t know about copout, but it’s a great scam.