Moore the Fool

[Roadtoad]

I don't watch Michael Moore's movies. Once I learned he had trouble telling the truth, I realized he had nothing to say that had any value.

It seems I'm not alone. In reading this article by Ellen Goodman, I find myself agreeing with her, particularly as she says:

Moore described his movie as an "op-ed piece," not a documentary. Well, I know something about op-ed pieces. Over the long run, you don't get anywhere just whacking your audience upside the head; you try to change the mind within it. You don't just go for the gut. You try, gulp, reason.

I actually agree with P.J. O'Rourke, a conservative who writes in The Atlantic that he tunes out Rush because there's no room for measured debate: "Arguing, in the sense of attempting to convince others, has gone out of fashion with conservatives." But now liberals are trudging purposefully down the same low road.

Goodman is not what you could call "objective" much of the time. I recall well her articles regarding Linda Tripp, and know that she viewed Tripp with suspicion and hatred, mainly because Tripp spoke out about Bill Clinton. (Actually, Tripp should have been viewed with suspicion and hatred because she was an idiot who tried to play the role of Junior G-Man, and tried to take the law into her own hands, at the expense of Monica Lewinsky. Bitch.)

But there's something comforting in her recognition that Michael Moore is at the very best no better than Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh's standards are low, but at least when he spews his sludge, he's pulling it from the major media outlets. Moore just seems to pull it out of thin air.

Then there's Christopher Hitchen's assessment, which was summed up this way:

To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

This is one of the main problems I have with the Left. "We're right because we say we're right. The facts are worthless without our interpretation of them."

Well, sorry to bust the left's bubble, but I have a brain and the last time I checked, it worked well enough to keep me out of trouble with the IRS, the CHP, and my wife. I suspect that while my interpretation of facts can at times be out of synch with reality, more often than not, it's been sufficient to keep me functional in this society. I pay my taxes, I obey the law, and I've managed to raise four sons. I don't need someone to think for me.

That Moore thinks I need someone like this is adequate reason to not merely ignore him, but it's enough to say, "Don't let the door hit your oversized @$$ on the way out."

Still not enough? Consider this from Michael Isikoff and Mark Hosenball, who state:

The innuendo is greatest, of course, in Moore’s dealings with the matter of the departing Saudis flown out of the United States in the days after the September 11 terror attacks. Much has already been written about these flights, especially the film’s implication that figures with possible knowledge of the terrorist attacks were allowed to leave the country without adequate FBI screening—a notion that has been essentially rejected by the 9/11 commission. The 9/11 commission found that the FBI screened the Saudi passengers, ran their names through federal databases, interviewed 30 of them and asked many of them “detailed questions." “Nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country,” the commission stated. New information about a flight from Tampa, Florida late on Sept. 13 seems mostly a red herring: The flight didn’t take any Saudis out of the United States. It was a domestic flight to Lexington, Kentucky that took place after the Tampa airport had already reopened.

There you have it: Moore's hatred of Bush is so virulent, he forgets that the one thing that might actually bring Bush down is FACTS! If people realized what Bush actually did, they wouldn't need Moore to spew his falsehoods, because Bush's failures are more than enough reason to not vote for him, unless he's got a first rate zero for an opponent in November. (Which means we'll probably be stuck with him for another four years.)

Moore is dishonest. He's a cheater, and in the end, that's what people are going to remember about him.

 

[demon]

"Moore is dishonest. He's a cheater, and in the end, that's what people are going to remember about him."

Let`s hope no one dies `cause of that.

 

[Jocko]

"Moore is dishonest. He's a cheater, and in the end, that's what people are going to remember about him."

Let`s hope no one dies `cause of that.

So you agree? False dichotomy and tu quoque fallacies aside, I mean?

 

[Cain]

Holy Sh!t, thanks for bringing this to my attention. It's not as though Moore has already been called several thousand times, or that the Hitchens article has been quoted and cited on half a dozen occasions.

You add your toothpick to the pile.

This is one of the main problems I have with the Left. "We're right because we say we're right. The facts are worthless without our interpretation of them."

If you say so.

 

[RichardR]

I don't watch Michael Moore's movies. Once I learned he had trouble telling the truth, I realized he had nothing to say that had any value.

That is what is officially known as an ad Hominem attack. It's completely bigoted. As you have not seen the film I suggest you shut up about it.

 

[The Fool]

Just saw the film....won't tell you how on the grounds that I may incriminate myself.

Its a major Bush bashing, roughly equivalent to the bashing Moore gets from Bush-ites. As I will never understand how such a person became the President of such a great nation I won't comment any further . Except to say, see the film....its not what you may expect. I was quite disturbed by some things I saw, and they were not fabrications or lies. They were opinion, one mans opinion.

 

[a_unique_person]

But there's something comforting in her recognition that Michael Moore is at the very best no better than Rush Limbaugh. Limbaugh's standards are low, but at least when he spews his sludge, he's pulling it from the major media outlets. Moore just seems to pull it out of thin air.

Not quite, as I have already pointed out in another thread, (you could have found one of those already started rather starting a new one), Moore is nothing like Limbaugh. He may have faults, but one of them is not being like that. He has gone over all the facts for this film, and updated it before releasing it. Limbaugh is much cruder and lower.

As for O'Rourke criticsing Moore, I think he fails to see that he himself is really more the right wing equivalent of Mike Moore.

Mike Moore is a polemicist, I think. He tries to sway your point of view, and I don't know if I like that. But he is operating in an area that many others inhabit, he is just more successful than, say, PJ O'Rourke.

He is by no means, however, a Rush Limbaugh.

If you have any questions, he has actually set up a contact on his website, IIRC, where you can ask them. Please do so, if you have any, and let us know what sort of answer you get.

 

[Skeptic]

As I will never understand how such a person became the President of such a great nation I won't comment any further

It might have something to do with the fact that Bush is not the kind of man you think he is.

 

[Roadtoad]

Re: Re: Moore the Fool

That is what is officially known as an ad Hominem attack. It's completely bigoted. As you have not seen the film I suggest you shut up about it.

I forget who originally said it, but someone once said "I don't have to know how to lay an egg to spot a rotten one."

I don't have a problem with Moore saying what he chooses to. (And, perhaps, The Fool is correct. Perhaps a viewing is in order.) But the problem is even a polemic must have grounding in FACT. That's not an ad hom, that's a criticism. (And please, let's not get into a hijack of this thread. If you want to debate that aspect of this, let's start another thread to cover it.)

There are excellent criticisms of Bush which are factual, and as a result, devastate his claims. I've got a friend who sends me a bunch of this, and frankly, I find that far more effective than anything anyone like Michael Moore is putting out.

(And, yes, I'll go back and look over Moore's website.)

 

[tamiO]

Re: Re: Re: Moore the Fool

"I don't have to know how to lay an egg to spot a rotten one."

Even though you don't know how you do it, you do it just the same.

 

[Mike B.]

Foxnews recently played an old clip of Moore being interviewed by O'Reily. I usually have to turn that guy off after a minute because he is so grating. However, I watched to see Moore.

The weird thing is Moore sounded uncannily like the black helicopter, militia, right wing nutcases that used to go around when Clinton was President.

If anyone recalls they would say how "jack-booted" government thugs were going to break into your house and put the UN in charge....(blah, blah, blah...)

Moore stated that the reason anyone was supporting Bush in America is that they feared being placed in jail or worse if they answered the pollster the wrong way.

This is just loony. I mean I didn't take the "documentaries" made about Clinton by the far right seriously. (i.e. "Clinton Chronicles)

Why should anyone take Moore seriously?

BTW I had seen Roger and Me and BFC. I think too some of the outright lies (there is no other way to dance around it) in that film disqualify him as well. Things like saying a memorial says one thing when it doesn't and claiming Columbine made WMD is well pure B.S.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Moore the Fool

Even though you don't know how you do it, you do it just the same.

You ought to send this gem to Moore for his next "documentary." It's right up his alley.

Seriously, Roadtoad makes some good points. I've seen several of Moore's films, and I know to expect flimsy logic, heavy opinion and inflammatory language in the same way I expect to see slow-mo gunfights in a John Woo film.

It's what they do. Claiming the contrary is just silly.

 

[Lothian]

Re: Re: Re: Moore the Fool

I don't watch Michael Moore's movies. Once I learned he had trouble telling the truth, I realized he had nothing to say that had any value.....

I've got a friend who sends me a bunch of this, and frankly, I find that far more effective than anything anyone like Michael Moore is putting out.

So you find something you do look at more effective than something you don't. Not really a fair comparison I suggest.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Moore the Fool

So you find something you do look at more effective than something you don't. Not really a fair comparison I suggest.

His point was that it's not closed-minded to listen to NPR but not Rush Limbaugh, or to read the Chicago Trib and eschew Newsmax.

There comes a point where you have collected enough data to predict future moves with 100% accuracy, you know. Limbaugh and Moore both fall in this category, IMO.

 

[a_unique_person]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moore the Fool

His point was that it's not closed-minded to listen to NPR but not Rush Limbaugh, or to read the Chicago Trib and eschew Newsmax.

There comes a point where you have collected enough data to predict future moves with 100% accuracy, you know. Limbaugh and Moore both fall in this category, IMO.

Enough of these Limbaugh/Moore comparisons, they are totally different categories of people. Limbaugh wouldn't check a fact if his life depended on it. Moore can still be wrong, but the attacks on him have been heeded, his latest film is being checked repeatedly by him for factual content.

The problem people have with him is not that they can see errors in his work, but that so much of it is true.

 

[crimresearch]

"Seriously, Roadtoad makes some good points. I've seen several of Moore's films, and I know to expect flimsy logic, heavy opinion and inflammatory language in the same way I expect to see slow-mo gunfights in a John Woo film.

It's what they do. Claiming the contrary is just silly. "
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly.

It is what they do, it is what they do to get fabulously wealthy, and the minute that what they do stops bringing out huge crowds willing to stand in line and pay for what they do, they will do something else.

That's why it's called the 'entertainment industry' instead of the 'entertainment charity', or the 'truth industry'.

Moore used the tired old cliche taken from a hundred TV shows and movies, of the wannabe high school reporter following an authority figure around with a camera to embarrass them, and made an adult version that sold lots of tickets.
Then he milked that formula over and over, pausing along the way to pump up ticket sales by holding the same sort of press conferences that TV wrestlers do, to announce the 'censorship' of his next movie.

Anyone that needed Michael Moore movies to 'open their eyes' about politics, probably needs John Woo movies to reveal the hidden truth about those sneaky criminals.

 

[Random]

I have been reading much of the right-wing commentary on Moore’s new film (which I have not seen yet) and have noticed a few trends.

First, I have noticed that many of the more vocal F911 haters have not actually seen the film, and they are quite proud of it. “I am not going to give dime one to Moore to have him lie to me for two hours”, seems to be the consensus. Nevertheless, these people seem to be the ones who are most adamant about what a horrible film this is.

The second thing I have noticed is that few people are attacking the accuracy of the facts presented in Moore’s current film. Other than a great deal of yelling about whether or not members of bin Laden’s family were allowed to fly before anyone else in America or out of the country (which Moore apparently got technically right, although I understand he does leave a false impression), most of the arguments against the new film seem to amount to a few dozen variations of “Michael Moore is biased/opinionated/fat”.

I don’t find that really surprising, after getting hammered on Bowling for Columbine, Moore almost certainly went over this film with a fine tooth comb looking to weed out anything that was not technically true. I seriously doubt he allowed anything in the film that the nitpicker crowd could hammer him on this time.

I will probably have more to say after I have actually seen the film.

 

[Jocko]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moore the Fool

Enough of these Limbaugh/Moore comparisons, they are totally different categories of people. Limbaugh wouldn't check a fact if his life depended on it. Moore can still be wrong, but the attacks on him have been heeded, his latest film is being checked repeatedly by him for factual content.

Blow it out your ass, AUP. They're exactly the same. Just because you root for one and not the other doesn't mean they're not mirror images. They're both long on talk, short on facts and have no problem cutting a few corners in the reality department in the name of making a point. THEY ARE IDENTICAL.

The problem people have with him is not that they can see errors in his work, but that so much of it is true.

Boy, I can see whose mailing list you're on, buddy. The problem people have with Moore is that he lies, distorts and demogogues. The problem with people like you is that you can;t see that.

 

[EvolveNow]

I don't watch Michael Moore's movies. Once I learned he had trouble telling the truth, I realized he had nothing to say that had any value.

It seems I'm not alone. In reading this article by Ellen Goodman, I find myself agreeing with her, particularly as she says:

it always gives me a chuckle to read or listen to some non-sensical doofus attack a book or movie or TV show without them ever having seen it. And what really puts me on the floor is the fact that you haven't seen the thing so you simply go out and search for other's opinions to co-opt for yourself. Here's an idea!....Why don't you get your lazy a** out to the theatre and see the thing so you can form an opinion allllll your own....or you could simply continue blithering on like an uniformed dolt.

Then there's Christopher Hitchen's assessment, which was summed up this way:

quote:To describe this film as dishonest and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise above the excremental. To describe it as an exercise in facile crowd-pleasing would be too obvious. Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness. It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.

Ahhh yes the oft quoted Mr. Hitchens...the official mouthpiece of the Power Vocabulary club. Hitchens has a real talent for burying his point among so many poly-syllabic, arcane words that I find him somewhat difficult to read. In fact, in my opinion Hitchens is a knee-jerk reactionary and a simple contrarian. If you told Hitchens that water is wet, he would come up with an angry piece stating how in fact water is not wet and he is the only one who knows the truth about it. Ya, I don't care for the man or his ramblings. BUT I make every effort to read what he has to say regardless of how I feel about it. I like to at least be informed about the things that I bitch about/disagree with. Could you possibly do me the favour of informing yourself before you condemn something RT? Couldja? Huh?

M

 

[Skeptic]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Moore the Fool

They're both long on talk, short on facts and have no problem cutting a few corners in the reality department in the name of making a point. THEY ARE IDENTICAL.

Well, at least Rush doesn't pretend to be against "capitalist greed" while making millions or against "overconsumption" when weighting 320 pounds. He's an idiot, but a more honest one than Moore. It was Martin Gardner, I believe, who called books like, say, Sylvia Browne's, "ooks": the LOOK like books--paper witrh words printed on them--but are really a commercial geegaw to make money off the faithful.

Surely, Limbaugh's "The Way Things Ought to Be" is an "ook". So are Moore's "ooks". But I really don't have a word for an "ook"-y film.. an "ovie"? an "ilm"? What Moore does is an "ovie": it LOOKS like a movie, but it's really a propaganda piece. The difference is the reaction of the mainline democrats. A few years ago, there was a similar conspiracy-theory movie about Bill Clinton, whose name I forgot at the moment, "exposing" the "evil conspiracy" behind his presidency. It was laughed off the stage, as it were--a commerical failure, endorsed and defended by virtually nobody in the Republican party.

Moore's movie is the same sort of conspiracy-theory nonsense, but it is endorsed by many "mainstream" democrats. I wonder if this will backfire: in the past, the success of the republicans was often due to the fact that the deomcratic party would not distance itself from its lunatic fringe. A party that endorses Moore, like one that endorses the Black Panthers, cannot be a mainline party.