Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
United States

Journal pudge's Journal: Michael Moore 75

Journal by pudge

I hadn't been planning on seeing Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11, but some friends invited me to the movie and a dinner, and it sounded like fun to experience it with them. And unfortunately, it surpassed my expectations.

The movie was very deceptive, in many ways. Many of them are lawyerly lies; he says, for example, that Saddam's Iraq was a nation that "had never attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen." Is it murder to fund Palestinian terrorists who kill Americans in Israel? Is it murder to kill American soldiers who are attempting to drive you out of Kuwait? Is it a threat against the United States to attempt to assassinate its former leader, or to attack its military, which is patrolling the no-fly zone? I'd answer yes to all of that, but Moore never gives these details to allow you to make you your own mind.

Most of the rest of Moore's lies are those of implication. Moore spends a great deal of time on the Bin Laden flights out of the country. He directly implies that the members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country without being questioned, by interviewing someone and talking about how you should interview such people before allowing them to leave, who said we did not do anything but check their passports when they left. But the 9/11 Commission says 22 of the 26 passengers on the "Bin Laden" flight were questioned; that the FBI were satisfied that no one allowed to leave had any connection to or knowledge of the events; and that no information has turned up since then to call that decision into question. In other words, there's nothing here.

And he goes into all this right after directly implying Bush should have listened to Richard Clarke pre-9/11 just because Clarke was his terrorism expert. But he makes no mention of the fact that it was Clarke's decision to allow these Saudis to leave the country; should not have Bush allowed them to leave just because Clarke, his terrorism expert, said it was OK?

And then there's the name of James Bath, which was blacked out of Bush's military records. Moore implies this is part of some conspiracy (indeed, he finishes his film with an animation of the name being covered up). Bath and Bush had both been relieved of duty in separate incidents. There was no reason to keep his name in the record, since it had nothing to do with Bush. To include it would have been a violation of Bath's privacy. It's standard procedure to black out the name in this case. There's nothing here.

There's a whole lot more (I don't buy all of those "deceits" at Kopel's site, but much of it is painfully obvious); this is just a few obvious examples where Moore is intentionally deceptive to try to convince you of his point. It's manipulative and deceptive propaganda. The only thing Moore convinced me of is that I should never again bother seeing any of his films.

Some have said that Moore's film, despite its deceptions, still paints a powerful picture of the reason why this war is a bad one. I don't think any of us needed Moore's help telling us that war is bad, do you? I thought Moore wanted people to see the truth; that's what he said, after all. It's just one more deception, I guess.

This discussion was created by pudge (3605) for no Foes, but now has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Michael Moore More

Michael Moore

Comments Filter:

  • This link will help (Score:4, Funny)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Tuesday July 06, 2004 @12:55PM (#9622942) Homepage Journal
    You just don't understand Real Ultimate Power [iki.fi] that is Michael Moore.

    Its good for a giggle :-)
  • You think it is "murder" for soldiers to kill other soldiers in wartime?

    Want to modify that claim a little?

    • Re:Murder? (Score:3, Insightful)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      You think it is "murder" for soldiers to kill other soldiers in wartime?

      Well, no, I didn't mean to -- though I know I did -- say I think all those things are murder/threats/etc.; I meant to say they arguably are. For example, some people would say that is murder, when you're the unlawful aggressor. In fact, many of Moore's supporters -- perhaps even Moore himself, it wouldn't surprise me -- have called Bush a murderer for unlawfully attacking Iraq.

      • Re:Murder? (Score:3, Interesting)

        by jamie ( 78724 )
        Your point was that the film is "deceptive" with its "lawyerly lies." I guess you think Moore needed to point out that Iraqi soldiers had killed American soldiers in the First Gulf War. Because nobody in the audience could be expected to know that obscure, unknown trivia. Leaving it out is "deceptive."

        That sound you hear is my eyes rolling.

        Hey, I like the phrase "lawyerly lies." You know, lies that aren't really technically lies, but attempts to mislead naive listeners by using language that could be mi

        • Re:Murder? (Score:3, Insightful)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          That sound you hear is my eyes rolling.

          Right, so since you have a problem with ONE of the several cases I mentioned, therefore my complaint that Moore was lying is void? That's just stupid.

          I wonder if anyone else important has used "lawyerly lies" in the last few years...

          This is so banal. *Everyone* I've seen who hates Bush and likes Moore has used this line. Either defend Moore's lies, or don't: don't try to change the subject.

          • Re:Murder? (Score:3, Interesting)

            by jamie ( 78724 )
            There's not much point. I could explain that Moore doesn't "imply" that the bin Ladens were flown out without questioning since he directly says they were interviewed. I could ask instead why you are dodging the central fact, which you were unwilling to admit for many months, that members of Osama bin Laden's freakin' family were whisked out of our country days after he orchestrated a horrific terrorist attack.

            I could point out that the Clarke interview factoid is just what you happen to think is relevant

            • I could explain that Moore doesn't "imply" that the bin Ladens were flown out without questioning since he directly says they were interviewed.

              Yes, you could explain that, but only by ignoring the context. Moore and Unger agreed we did not do "anything" except identify them, and then Moore says, "a little interview, check the passport, what else?" Unger: "Nothing." So if this "little interview" is not worth discussing apart from mentioning it, and they already agreed we did not do "anything" apart from
              • Your misleading, slippery language disinclines me to follow you down the rabbit hole.

                It's interesting that you now unreservedly use "lie" to describe the process of misleading an audience through subjective assertions, leaving out important information, and "lawyerly" statements of fact that may be misparsed by the incautious listener. Last week you even started using "lie" to describe me saying something you disagree with. I only wish you would apply these standards consistently. It's hard to believe thi

                • Your misleading, slippery language disinclines me to follow you down the rabbit hole.

                  Bullshit. My language is precise and fair and accurate.

                  It's hard to believe this is the same Pudge who refuses to accept that Bush lied about WMDs and the threat that Iraq posed.

                  Stick to the subject. You're just pissy because I proved you and Moore wrong.

                  You bring up this bullshit about how some names are not blacked out; I show you there's a damned good reason why (he's the only one who was disciplined instead of
                  • Bush lying about WMDs is the subject. The core of the film was Bush's phony rationale for the war in Iraq, and the consequences of an unnecessary war.

                    I guess to you this is all about "beating" me, so I really don't care to pursue it. If you want to back up your assertion that it's "standard procedure" to black out Bath's name for this reason you made up, you can do so. I wonder if you will explain exactly how "standard" this "procedure" was, given that the name was not blacked-out when the same document w

                    • Bush lying about WMDs is the subject.

                      It's not a rational response to the assertions that Moore is lying, unless you think it is a justification for Moore's lies.

                      I guess to you this is all about "beating" me

                      And once again, you guess wrong. I just found it interesting that you made some assertions about the facts that were meaningless or wrong, and when I showed that, you went back to attacking me and Bush instead of discussing Moore's lies, which was the topic at hand. If you want to so drastically d
                    • OK, pudge's journal about Michael Moore's movie has to be all about the things that are wrong with the movie. Things Moore got right are off-topic! Pudge commands it!

                      With regard to handling the truth, you are unable to do so! I deride your truth-handling ability!

                      Eh, you took your best shot. The worst you've said about Moore is that he emphasized some facts you don't think are very important, and he failed to bring up other facts which you do think are important. OK. Nice work. You want to call all of th

                    • OK, pudge's journal about Michael Moore's movie has to be all about the things that are wrong with the movie.

                      Au contraire. If you had chosen to talk about how Moore was right about WMD, that would've been fine. But you did not do that. You talked about Bush lying to contrast my attacking of Moore's lies. If you want to talk about Bush and WMD in regard to the movie instead, go ahead, but you didn't do that.

                      If you can't see the distinction, that's your problem.

                      The worst you've said about Moore is th
  • All based on fact, but hardly accurate. One-sided as hell, and full of wonky conclusions his own one-sided selected facts and judgements don't fully support in a slam-dunk manner.

    He is the left's pundit, and like most of the left's pundits, shoulda stuck to comedy. He USED to be pretty funny(TV Nation, etc.) imo, and you can see how those beginnings shaped what he does. He presents things like a comedian, but w/o the comedy now.

    Oh well.
    • You're right. I personally prefer the even-handedness of "our" commentators and statesmen like good ole Sean [hannity.com], jolly ole Rush [rushlimbaugh.com], soft spoken Bill [billoreilly.com] and good little Anne [anncoulter.org]. They are so even handed and never raise a wonky quibble... I think that is why we all love them dearly.

      My favorite new "fair and balanced" non-wonkiness is in portraying that bastard Edwards as the "Breck Girl" of politics. It was the most funny when I heard it NPR (I was just flipping, I wouldn't be caught dead listening to that trash) fro

      • I know you're not serious. Rush, Sean and Bill have been caught numerous times quite simply making shit up. Coulter isn't that bad on this front, but she is a hate spouting ideologue who has the same failings as Moore. It's easy to rip most pundits a new one(on both sides) over precisely the same shit I raised in my comment and Pudge raised in his journal.
  • I thought Moore wanted people to see the truth; that's what he said, after all.

    I thought he said he wanted people to vote against Bush (note, not 'for' anyone/anything), and that was the point of the movie.
    • When he was talking about the R rating it received, said, "To say that teenagers shouldn't see this movie means that the truth should be kept from them." He also said, "Every single fact I state in 'Fahrenheit 9/11' is the absolute and irrefutable truth," which is, of course, ridiculous.

      Maybe if he said they were 'not false,' that could be more defensible (even though there are many stated facts that are just flatly incorrect), but the problem is that truth is not in the rightness or wrongness of facts, b
      • Interesting points. Really.

        I personally think teens should see the film to prepare them for telling Army/Air Force/Navy/Marine Recruiters to go F*ck themselves.

        But that's just me. I hate war and in no way ever wanted to be in the military. I told the recruiters that got my name (Department of Defense Dependent Schools are required to turn over lists of graduating seniors) that I had already followed my dad around for 16 years... I already served my time and they could all screw themselves. The Marin

        • I don't know much about recruiting, but even assuming it is as bad as you say, I can't see telling people to sit through this whole stupid movie just for that.
  • But the 9/11 Commission says 22 of the 26 passengers on the "Bin Laden" flight were questioned; that the FBI were satisfied that no one allowed to leave had any connection to or knowledge of the events; and that no information has turned up since then to call that decision into question. In other words, there's nothing here.

    Why would the events on 9/11 cause the FBI to interview the bin Laden family? I'm sure the prior bombings were enough to get the ball rolling for the FBI to track them all down and sq
    • Why would the events on 9/11 cause the FBI to interview the bin Laden family? I'm sure the prior bombings were enough to get the ball rolling for the FBI to track them all down and square away any questions that could be asked. Why bug the family every time an attack takes place?

      I certainly don't know exactly what we knew, or what more we wanted to know, but yes, we certainly already knew a lot about these people, such that the comparison Moore made to McVeigh's family was pure deception. I can see the F

      • No one with any knowledge of what happened -- FBI, CIA, 9/11 Commission, anyone -- is saying that anyone was let out of the country who shouldn't have been.

        And until Michael Moore repeats almost exactly that same sentence, clearly and unequivocally, he's not worth listening to or paying any attention to. Everything else he says is just obfuscation so people will take his non-facts (notice he said every fact he stated in the movie was true) as truth.

    • That's interesting because a number of times the bin Ladens have said that they have had no contact with their illustrious relative in the past. Part of that assertion is due to FBI questioning of the family to allow them passage in the US, just as you said. The various three letter agencies regularly gather intel.

      However, this claim came under fire before 9-11 when the bin-Laden wedding video surfaced... and guess what. The FBI questioned the bin-Ladens again. In fact, after every incident surroundin

      • We had a President have to go under sworn taped testimony over an extra-marital affair, but not over POSSIBLE mishandling of the first Major foriegn attack against our country?!?! Come on.

        Clinton was not on the stand over an extra-marital affair, that I remember. If I'm not mistaken, he was on the stand over some matter of obstruction of justice, although the questions had to do with an extra-marital affair, I suppose. Again, I'm relying on memory here.

        So we're looking at obstruction of justice vs. a p
        • Semantics. The charges were in regards to Clinton hiding his affair.
          • It's not semantics. Hiding an affair that is germane to court proceding is 'obstruction of justice'. Hiding an affair from your wife is 'covering your arse'. Having an affair to begin with is just bad taste. Particularly in the Oral^H^H^Hval office.

            You make it sound like he was 'hiding his keys'. I honestly couldn't give a rats testicle if he had an affair or not. I find it in poor taste -- but it's not important to me. It *IS* important to me that he obstructed justice. It's not up to a defendant
            • You make it sound like he was 'hiding his keys'. I honestly couldn't give a rats testicle if he had an affair or not. I find it in poor taste -- but it's not important to me. It *IS* important to me that he obstructed justice. It's not up to a defendant (in this case, Clinton) to decide what's germane or not. If you allow that, our legal system falls apart.

              On a similar note, my state Senator was saying the other night that she was not accepted onto a jury because she refused to take a judge's instructions

              • my state Senator was saying the other night that she was not accepted onto a jury because she refused to take a judge's instructions. Her reasoning was that if she wrote a law, and she knew what it meant, she would not allow the judge's interpretation of that law to override her own.

                Well, that makes sense, doesn't it?

                It's not up to a legislator to interpret the law -- regardless if they wrote it or not. That job is left to the judiciary -- who interprets the law in toto. I don't think there's a state i

      • thorough questioning is probably in order. ... which is what took place before they were allowed to leave the country.

        As far as the 9-11 commission report... I don't put much credence in it. We had a President have to go under sworn taped testimony over an extra-marital affair, but not over POSSIBLE mishandling of the first Major foriegn attack against our country?!?! Come on.

        It's how things work. Clinton was sworn in for a civil suit, in which Paula Jones charged he sexually assaulted her. Had Congre

  • Comment removed (Score:3, Interesting)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @09:42AM (#9631264)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion
    • I thought this cartoon [bartcop.com] seemed appropriate.

      I don't think it's fair at all. Moore has been talking about Bush and the Iraq war a lot for a long time, and has been on every major TV show slamming Bush and the war for a month, and we're supposed to withhold opinions on his work? Pfui!

      Sure, we can't have a very good view about the movie itself, but this isn't about the movie itself, it is about what Moore is saying in his movie, which are largely the same things he is saying outside his movie.
      • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Comment removed based on user account deletion
        • Until you see the movie (which you have done, so I have no problem with your comments), how can you possibly judge it?

          By what the creator has said about it.

          to comment on the accuracy ... of the film without viewing it is absurd

          Nonsense. Utter tripe. Moore has said many of the things the movie has said. For example, he defends on his web site various portions of the movie. It is absolutely unreasonable for you to say it is absurd for me to criticize what Moore says, and by proxy, the movie, since t
          • Comment removed based on user account deletion
            • Even assuming Moore's film is as (misleading) as you suggest, why are you ashamed of the liberals in this country? You're not a liberal.

              I am an American, they are Americans. I don't see this as us-and-them like many people do, but two sides fighting together to achieve the same essential goals, but in different ways.

              Wouldn't it make more sense to be ashamed of the conservatives in this country who trumpet the many misleaders of the right?

              And I am. I think Rush is about as bad as Moore, I think Coult
              • Pfui. If something's wrong, I say so; I don't grant clemency or additional time to be free from criticism just because someone else is doing something wrong.

                I will give Pudge credit for trying to be more even handed in his criticism. He hasn't professed to be a fan of these wonks that I know of.

                On the other hand, some of the outlandishness of those same people doesn't rise to his criticisms either. They are just ignored.

                Still, I understand that Moore is more of a topic-du-jour and therefore probabl

                • On the other hand, some of the outlandishness of those same people doesn't rise to his criticisms either. They are just ignored.

                  I only have so much time, and sure, I am less inclined to attack people who are on "my side." But I don't hold back if I have a reason to criticize.

                  Still, I understand that Moore is more of a topic-du-jour and therefore probably rises above Pudge's normal radar scope.

                  Well, I'd not have even said much if I hadn't seen the movie, and I wasn't planning on seeing it. If I read
                  • True... and hence I keep butting heads with you in your journal. At least you spread it around and I can see attempts at being fair. It seems like there is more of a discourse here. Good job.
                • Comment removed based on user account deletion
                  • The thing is that when Limbuagh hit the scene, most of the "corruption" was coming from the left. It didn't have the mainstream appeal Rush did, but that's just because the right ended up being more effective at the same tactics the left had already been using. And the liberals have been doing it all along since then, too. Moore has just been much more effective than his predecessors on the left.

                    You don't have to look any farther than the Democratic primary season to see an example: Al Sharpton. He has
                    • I am not saying the right has not been bad. I am saying to say the right is to blame for the problems is naive and short-sighted.
                      Right been bad? And the left? Hypocracy is the coin of the realm. And the sad reality of WHY is simple: Because it works. Critical thinking is not a skill taught in the public schools.
                    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
          • Which is why I am so ashamed of the liberals in this country who trumpet Moore's movie.

            I have said that I liked the film for its coverage of the actual conflict, its participants, its survivors, its victims and the real price that is being paid over there. I also applaud the questioning of our recruiting techniques and our "recruiting targets." The questioning of our "all volunteer" force when some people really don't have an option and/or have been sold a bill of goods. These are valid valuable thing

            • What did you take from the Iraq footage and the footage of the soldiers talking (some in favor of the war, as you'll recall) about their experiences?

              I don't think it was all that interesting. Soldiers say basically the same thing about almost every war.

              What did you think of the recruiters?

              Nothing much. YMMV. Even if I found it compelling, I wouldn't find it compelling enough to save it from the rest of the movie.

              Did you take anything away from the Marine that has said he will refuse to go to kill
    • Here. Here.

      liberal isn't a bad word.

      neither is conservative.

      But call yourself a conservative these days and people pat you on your back.

      Call the next guy a liberal and they'll punch him in the stomach.

      • But call yourself a conservative these days and people pat you on your back.

        Call the next guy a liberal and they'll punch him in the stomach.

        Not on Slashdot, as well as many places online (including Real Life meetings of people from the online world), where it's precisely the opposite.
        • I'm talking real-life here, Pudge. I live in a town of about 120 thousand deep in the heart of the midwest. It is a staunchly conservative place. All the newspapers are conservative, most of the churches are conservative (going so far as tell their congregations who to vote for in the coming elections), all the radio stations except for NPR and one college station are conservative, and all the local TV news is conservative.

          It makes sense that "online" life may have more liberals. Being so far flung (i

          • I'm talking real-life here, Pudge.

            I am too. Real-life is different for everyone. I saw the Moore film in the heart of downtown Seattle, where liberals reign. I know it's different everywhere. In school and in rural areas, it was conservatives good, liberals bad. In Boston and Seattle, it's liberals good, conservatives bad. Most other places I've been -- suburbs -- are mixtures. Of course, suburbs in MA are more liberal than other places, and cities in Texas more conservative. I don't buy for a sec

  • Unger Makes Some Good Points... (Score:3, Informative)

    by cascadefx ( 174894 ) * <morlockhq@ g m a il.com> on Wednesday July 07, 2004 @12:27PM (#9632970) Journal
    Most of the rest of Moore's lies are those of implication. Moore spends a great deal of time on the Bin Laden flights out of the country. He directly implies that the members of the Bin Laden family were flown out of the country without being questioned, by interviewing someone and talking about how you should interview such people before allowing them to leave, who said we did not do anything but check their passports when they left. But the 9/11 Commission says 22 of the 26 passengers on the "Bin Laden" flight were questioned; that the FBI were satisfied that no one allowed to leave had any connection to or knowledge of the events; and that no information has turned up since then to call that decision into question. In other words, there's nothing here.

    And he goes into all this right after directly implying Bush should have listened to Richard Clarke pre-9/11 just because Clarke was his terrorism expert. But he makes no mention of the fact that it was Clarke's decision to allow these Saudis to leave the country; should not have Bush allowed them to leave just because Clarke, his terrorism expert, said it was OK?



    This is interesting, because Unger addresses this in relation to Isikoff's objections to the film. To whit:

    When first interviewed on this subject in 2003, Clarke said that his approval for evacuating the Saudis had been conditional on the FBI' s vetting them. "I asked [the F.B.I.] to make sure that no one inappropriate was leaving. I asked them if they had any objection to Saudis leaving the country at a time when aircraft were banned from flying." He noted that he assumed the F.B.I. had vetted the bin Ladens prior to September 11.

    Then he added, "I have no idea if they did a good job. I'm not in any position to second guess the FBI."

    And there's the rub. Given the long history of errors made by the FBI in investigating counterterrorism, how can one possibly accept their infallibility as unquestioningly as Isikoff does.I interviewed two FBI agents who participated in the Saudi evacuation and they made it clear that they did not subject the passengers to a formal criminal investigation. One rather astonishing finding of the 9/11 Commission is that though the rubble was still very much ablaze at the World Trade Center a few days after the attacks, the FBI did not even bother to check the Saudi passenger lists against its terror watch lists.



    Interesting stuff.

    • This is interesting, because Unger addresses this in relation to Isikoff's objections to the film.

      Hmmmm.

      I interviewed two FBI agents who participated in the Saudi evacuation and they made it clear that they did not subject the passengers to a formal criminal investigation.

      Of course not. There was and is no reason to. "Have you stopped beating your mother?"

      One rather astonishing finding of the 9/11 Commission is that though the rubble was still very much ablaze at the World Trade Center a few days
      • Of course not. There was and is no reason to. "Have you stopped beating your mother?"

        I'm going to call you on this cheap shot. A full questioning with regard to the passengers and their knowledge of 9-11 and/or relations to any of the 9-11 possible perpetrators would have been considered a "formal criminal investigation."

        I give you "props" for being funny, though.

        • A full questioning with regard to the passengers and their knowledge of 9-11 and/or relations to any of the 9-11 possible perpetrators would have been considered a "formal criminal investigation."

          No, he was talking about the passengers being subjected to criminal investigation, not merely questioned as a part of a criminal investigation. Every time I've ever seen that phrase used, the thousands of times in my life, it meant that those being subjected to the investigation are the subjects OF the investiga

  • No. (Score:2)

    by mfh ( 56 )
    > The movie was very deceptive, in many ways.
    No. It's all quite accurate and it's not deceptive, it's deliberately painting a different picture than what Fox or CNN would paint. It's like the shadow of Bush's campaign. It's an inverse description of what's going on. It's all pretty much accurate as far as I know.

    Moore's voice has always been one of the antithesis of the modern fake American ham sandwich. His voice is never going to change as a director of documentaries, except to perhaps get a bit wors

    • Re:No. (Score:2)

      by pudge ( 3605 ) *
      No. It's all quite accurate and it's not deceptive

      That's stupid. I outlined several ways in which it was deliberately misleading. Saying it is deceptive in the opposite direction from how other people are deceptive doesn't make it any less deceptive.

      Canadians like myself listen to pro-war, pro-Bush commercials from most of our channels and we have to sit through it, knowing full well that he's not that good of a president. He's made some serious mistakes, mistakes that are far worse than the Nixon mis

      • Re:No. (Score:2)

        by mfh ( 56 )
        Pudge, if you can't respond to my comments without being an asshole, how about not responding at all?

        • Re:No. (Score:1)

          by Jhon ( 241832 )
          You made a lot of assertions -- many of which aren't reasonable, factual or well supported in fact. pudge called you on them.

          He was annoyed that you could make such callous unsupported claims and he was quite short and pointed with you, yes.

          I'm not sure if it falls in to the realm of "being an asshole", however. Although, the "sucks to be you" comment was 'over the top'... I'll grant you that.

          Then again, this is his journal...

          Maybe you can respond to his counter claims? If not here, then, as you sugg

        • Re:No. (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          So you can respond to me being an asshole, and I can't return the favor? Check yourself, or don't bother posting here.

      • Iraq did what they could to defend themselves

        Iraq had no right to defend against the no-fly zone. They lost the war.

        Losing or winning a war has nothing to do with a countrys right to do anything, just its ability. Or are you arguing that the France underground resistance was doing wrong by continuing to oppose the nazis after losing the war ? Or that the allied soldiers had no right to try and escape the German prison camps because they had been captured (and thus by definition lost a battle) ? Or t

        • Re:No. (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          Losing or winning a war has nothing to do with a countrys right to do anything, just its ability.

          I am talking about a specific case.

          Or are you arguing that the France underground resistance was doing wrong by continuing to oppose the nazis after losing the war ?

          France didn't sign a resolution agreeing to disarmament and international enforcement of several of its provisions (cf. UN Security Council Resolution 687). Iraq gave up some of its sovereignty when it signed on that dotted line, after being
    • I have a journal-entry on my suggestion for how to effectively wage the "War on Terror": http://slashdot.org/~Anne.O.Neimaus/journal/77327
    • > No. It's all quite accurate and it's not deceptive, it's deliberately painting a different picture than what Fox or CNN would paint. It's like the shadow of Bush's campaign. It's an inverse description of what's going on. It's all pretty much accurate as far as I know.

      There are some alarming inconsistencies that have been suggested as falsehoods or exaggerations, or have not been backed up by subsequent analysis. In my research, I found a partisan but well-researched and somewhat evenhanded (he incl

      • Okay (Score:2)

        by mfh ( 56 )
        > Why does Michael Moore get a free pass?

        I think it's because he's doing what the other guys have been doing for so long... spinning the story. I happen to think Moore is genius for doing it, because many of the people who believed the Bushes during previous elections might pick up on the technique and realize it's happening on both sides of the coin. The fact Moore's using his arch-rival's tools against him says something about the guy -- it takes balls to do that.

        The facts you've brought up are inte

        • Re:Okay (Score:2)

          by pudge ( 3605 ) *
          I like them because he's willing to say things that other people are only brave enough to think.

          When people said this about Rush when he first got big over 10 years ago, it was just as true about him, and the people on the left rightly said that's a stupid justification for him being irresponsible.
          • > When people said this about Rush when he first got big over 10 years ago, it was just as true about him, and the people on the left rightly said that's a stupid justification for him being irresponsible.

            I actually watched Rush religiously when he was on air. I didn't like what he was saying usually, but I still wanted to hear what he would say next. He got me thinking, even if it was just to spite his often arrogance and bigotry.

            I'm sorry if you thought I was justifying Moore. I wasn't. I was merely
            • I'm not against holding Moore to account for his facts or fictions... I'm just against discounting his films because they are in opposition to something *you* believe in.

              Well, you seemed to have a problem with what I was saying, which was exactly that: holding to account, NOT discounting him for his differing beliefs.

              • Cool (Score:2)

                by mfh ( 56 )
                > Well, you seemed to have a problem with what I was saying, which was exactly that: holding to account, NOT discounting him for his differing beliefs.

                Rightly so.
        • I disagree that Moore is brave. Brave is to try not to spin the facts. It is probably impossible to do, but Moore and his propagandist ilk are clearly not trying. And I don't think it is healthy. It is a big problem with the mid- to far-left as I see it: a consistently strident, pejorative tone that is focused on intimidating me to agree with them. To convince me, I'll need a coherent, levelheaded, and well-reasoned assessment of the facts. Diluting the certainly ample misdeeds of the current administ

  • An opening (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Allen Zadr ( 767458 ) * <Allen.Zadr@gmaBLUEil.com minus berry> on Wednesday July 14, 2004 @01:31PM (#9698517) Journal
    I would not have posted to your journal except for two words:
    " ...I guess"
    ...this gives me the impression that you may be open to some ideas and thoughts (that and the fact that you turned comments on). Anyway, to my point.

    I am a Michael Moore fan the way that I am Rush Limbaugh fan. They both have very similar tactics, though Michael Moore does not take himself nearly so seriously. Both of them bend the facts in an entertaining or inflammatory way that is engineered (at it's core) to spark subject curiosity.

    And that's why I don't think it's usefull to try to debunk either of them. Michael Moore's most important task is getting people to know the truth. He doesn't necessarily hand you the truth, but he shows you things that you will hopefully be curious about and actually research. If Bush is portrayed in an uncomplimentary light - out of context - that doesn't mean that it has no value.

    When Rush Limbaugh was at his height of popularity, he would often quote Bill Clinton out of context. As far as I'm concerned, both are to be taken as entertainers and exhibitionists. Neither of them should be taken at face value. However, both of them can lead to a more educated populace by sparking curiosity.

    I firmly believe that Rush Limbaugh should be required listening for all Liberals, just as I believe that Michael Moore should be required reading for all Republicans. If you already agree with them, you'll get no value out of it. It won't piss you off, and it won't spark your need to "disproove".

    I find it impressive that Michael Moore is the inspiration for a web site [revoketheoscar.com] dedicated to researching the stuff that he says. There's no way Micheal Moore could have asked for a more responsive result.

    • I am a Michael Moore fan the way that I am Rush Limbaugh fan. They both have very similar tactics, though Michael Moore does not take himself nearly so seriously.

      Hm. I never heard Rush threaten to sue someone who said he was wrong.

      Both of them bend the facts in an entertaining or inflammatory way that is engineered (at it's core) to spark subject curiosity. ... And that's why I don't think it's usefull to try to debunk either of them.

      Many people believe what they say. If you think it is a good or ne
      • Assuming I've got the right reference... I agree that his complaining against, "Micheal Moore Hates America [michaelmoo...merica.com]"* is pretty stupid. I can't and won't defend that (Nor would I defend Rush's drug abuse.) *see footnote 1.

        --

        Misinformed? I didn't get the impression from your original journal entry that you even felt that there was much "mis-information", wild opinions mixed with a little "out-of-context" (making Bush look like an actor preparing for a show), perhaps. Even "Moore Watch" has been caught mis-dire

        • I didn't get the impression from your original journal entry that you even felt that there was much "mis-information"

          Not a lot of actually false statements, but a lot of misinformation in the sense of making people think false things about the facts, like the Afgahanistan pipeline thing, which he said the Afghanistan war might have been about a Unocal pipeline, which was dropped years before. I can't see how that, despite nothing false actually being stated, is not misinformation.

          against Bush? Yes, to
          • Pudge,

            I, for one, would have never read as much or as deeply into the 9/11 commission findings (nor found your post), without this movie. So, I am happy it was produced.

            Concerning objectivity... Being objective is like explaining the weather. You can give the facts that are obvious to all, and nobody will question it, "it rained". You can give the facts that are easy to find, "the storm moved south from Maine". However, to really explain a specific weather event, most of the contributing factors to t

            • Concerning objectivity... Being objective is like explaining the weather. You can give the facts that are obvious to all, and nobody will question it, "it rained".

              I used the word "objective" only in response to how you treated the idea of "how bad" his movie is as though it can be quantified, not in relation to Moore or the debunkers; it seems like you say "Concerning objectivity" as though I brought it up in this context, which I did not do.

              Regardless -- not to brag, but to give you some context about

Slashdot Top Deals

How many surrealists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? One to hold the giraffe and one to fill the bathtub with brightly colored power tools.

Close