NPR on Michael Moore

[glacier]

 

the movie raises lots of questions and it does a great job at countering the propaganda we are being submitted to 24/7, and i can't ask for more. as mmoore said, these are ficticious times and nothing is what it seems. all that we see on the "news" is scripted but you don't have a problem with it. for once we have a movie that shows the other side (how fake they are), and you guys cry bias/unfair/lie.

 

If Moore is taking the moral high ground, then shouln't he hold himself (and the public) to a higher standard, rather than say, 'well, they propagandize the news, so can I.'

 

I think we can ask for more.

[j_b]

I think we can ask for more.

 

because you want more? on the basis of the content of your posts, I think not. more posturing.

[b-rock]

It's called politics, my friend.

 

Yes in a particulary disgusting, disheartening new way pioneered by the GOP. Those personal attacks, just like the ones against Max Cleland and others takes it all to a whole new level. Apparently one you are proud to be associated with.

 

Your grasp of our nations political history is weak. The political arena is much tamer now than it was between, say, 1860 and 1930. I would even add 1968 and 1972 to the "less civil" column. If you believe the Republicans are more disposed to "dirty politics" than your Democrat friends, you are simply wrong... or wearing some pretty dark blinders..

 

Ok, modern politics. Denegrating someone who actually served our country and made real sacrifices like Cleland or McCain in favor of some chickenshit who could only run and hide in the National gaurd the way they did is disgusting. Smear campaigns by the Democrats that equal or approach this level of depravity? Let's hear 'em. And no I don't care about what happened in 1860, the world of political messages and how they are disseminated today doesn't even compare.

 

Shit long ago I vowed not to get into political discussions on cc, and here I go. I need a new job, apparently this one doesn't keep me focused. Ba bye.

 

[JayB]

"as if you cared about iraqis ... please spare us the hypocrisy."

 

This is an evasion, not a counterargument. Better go back to Moore's website and memorize some more talking points.

 

Leaving me aside for a moment - Michael Moore purports to care about them, so it is incumbent upon him to assess their condition both under/as it would be under Hussein and contrast that with their current condition and prospects.

 

 

 

[willstrickland]

But I find it rather strange the only time "politically neutral" WillStrickland comes out to play is when defense of a left-wing cause or cook is required.

 

Will, please spare us all the anger over John McCain's rough treatment by GW in 2000. It's called politics, my friend...If you wish to maintain your non partisan/Libertarian label you'll have to at least pretend to abhore the lefties now and then.

 

Gimme a fuckin' break. Maybe you'd like to re-read my post, I don't think you will find me on the defense of the left...or even a left-wing cook? WTF? They make bad quiche or something? I think you mean Kook?

 

Anyway....First, the fact that polictics has become the slimiest show on earth, is no excuse for the shit they pulled in 2000. Did you see those ads that ran in South Carolina? "Would you vote for John McCain if you knew he fathered an illegitimate child" while showing a young black child on the screen. And spare me the free trade and Vietnam bit, I haven't seen BushCo pushing China very hard to float their currency.

 

Second, the right is running the show...in the White House and Congress. It's not the left that are spending us into the poorhouse while simultaneously cutting taxes, or out playing crusader. Although given a chance, the left would spend just as much, on entitlement bullshit while raising the tax burden to do it. Third, exactly how does my critcism of the Bush administration equate to an all embracing stance toward the left? As you may recall, my take on Moore/Amy Goodman et al are that they are simply windbag propagandists of the same ilk as Limbaugh/Hannity etc. Not much difference IMO, I think they're all full of shit. I support gun owners rights, strong national defense spending, responsible tax cuts, balanced budgets, less government, states rights. Leave the religious and polarizing social issues out of it. You want to affect that debate, teach your children values and propogate that ideology through your community, don't attempt to legislate it.

 

I saw the Moore film. I though it was disappointing. I found the thing to be poorly crafted and if anyone has any expectation of objectivity from a Moore film, they don't know much about the guy. I found some of the footage to be hilarious though, in what was an ominous movie. The footage of Wolfowitz combing his hair and Ashcroft singing were worth the price of admission. That said, I left the film no better informed, and with no shift of opinion. It was about what I expected content-wise, but less than I expected production-wise. The biggest omission IMO, was the Israel factor. Anyone who ignores our propping up Israel in this

whole terrorism debate is fooling themselves. This is IMO easily the biggest factor. It's not oil, it's not that they

"hate our freedom", it's not that they envision transforming the whole world into an islamic theocracy. "It's the Israel factor stupid!" Anyone want to venture a connection bewteen the jewish power brokers in this country and the neocon policy wonks, media, and pundits? It's not a difficult exercise.

 

It speaks volumes about the transition of the GOP that my bitching is commonly directed toward them. I used to share core values with the GOP and have seen them go by the wayside in exchange for placing polarizing social issues at the top of the platform. My...distress, for lack of better word, with the transition is why you see my ire directed toward the GOP. I, along with the rest of the socially moderate but fiscally conservative wing, have been sold out to court the evangelicals and neocons.

 

The Dem party is a joke. It's a cobbled together contingent of fringe ideological groups with grand visions to solve problems....with all those visions involving an expensive govt solution.

 

While I am firmly in the "anyone but Bush" camp, I think Kerry is alot like Gore, completely uninspiring, borderline inept. Another man with "polling vision" and no balls. I will be voting Lib for Pres, Dem for the AK US senate seat, GOP for the AK State Senate seat, and GOP for the AK State House seat.

 

1 dem, 1 Lib, 2 GOP. Not quite neutral.

[cj001f]

Your grasp of our nations political history is weak. The political arena is much tamer now than it was between, say, 1860 and 1930. I would even add 1968 and 1972 to the "less civil" column. If you believe the Republicans are more disposed to "dirty politics" than your Democrat friends, you are simply wrong... or wearing some pretty dark blinders..

 

Fairweather-

Remind me if I'm wrong, but didn't Nixon ® use the mechanisms of the state to work for his own reelection in the Watergate scandal? No democratic president has done that since then.

 

If your going to use broad generalisations, back them up with facts. Or run away from them, as you do in the access debate.

[Fairweather]

...or even a left-wing cook? WTF? They make bad quiche or something? I think you mean Kook?

Shit! I am obviously a victim of phonetics. (And poor proofreading.) I need some of that word-rote they teach nowdays!

 

 

 

 

 

Anyone who ignores our propping up Israel in this

whole terrorism debate is fooling themselves. This is IMO easily the biggest factor. It's not oil, it's not that they

"hate our freedom", it's not that they envision transforming the whole world into an islamic theocracy. "It's the Israel factor stupid!" Anyone want to venture a connection bewteen the jewish power brokers in this country and the neocon policy wonks, media, and pundits? It's not a difficult exercise.

 

 

Ah yes! The Jewish conspiracy. I expected more from you, Will. If there is one thing Bush should be praised for it is coming out FOR Israel. Past neutrality has gotten America and the Israeli people nowhere. More bus bombings, more intentional killing of innocent civilians...and Yasser Arafat, a terrorist killer running the coop!

 

I am proud to see our nation take a stand for Israel in their struggle to exist peacefully as a soverign entity within a sea of Islamo-backassed sheikdoms.

[glacier]

Ah, you called me on it. You're right, I'm here posturing semi-anonymously on a bulletin board rather than out there changing the world, just like the rest of the poser/posters.

 

And hence, we are in a world where we are fed news by about 4 essentially undifferentiated news sources, and have the choice of voting for either an illiterate or an obfuscator for president.

 

So why shouldn't we hold an alleged documentarian like Moore to a higher standard (Or our other news outlets, for that matter)? As the oft-quoted columnists have pointed out - he's much closer to a Riefenstahl than a Murrow. Yes, rather than F9/11's inferences and allusions, I would love to see either a smoking gun, or documented proof to the contrary regarding everything from somebody's Natl. Guard records to the 'Saudi connection' to the real reason we rolled tanks into Iraq. Moore's jump-cuts and edits are no different than the administation's allusions to Iraq/Al-queda connections. Neither provide truth (whatever that is) and tend to distract and cloud so that the truth is more difficult to expose.

[cj001f]

I am proud to see our nation take a stand for Israel in their struggle to exist peacefully as a soverign entity within a sea of Islamo-backassed sheikdoms.

Nothing like backing one state founded on intolerance vs another state founded on intolerance.

[willstrickland]

Think what you will Fairweather. I'm not calling it a "conspiracy". And I am by no means an anti-semite or have any ill feeling towards judaism. But to deny that our big brother backing and tacit approval of all actions they (Israel) take is a factor that compromises our own security is to ignore reality.

 

Consider this:

 

"In 1996, Perle, Feith and Wurmser collaborated on a policy paper for the government of newly elected Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

 

The paper, called “A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm” and published by the Jerusalem-based Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies, was a blueprint of sorts for how Israel’s new leaders should handle the Palestinian conflict.

 

Seven years later, the document has become perhaps the most-cited and damning piece of evidence in the anti-neocon dossier.

 

The paper suggested that Netanyahu abandon the Oslo peace process, reassert Israel’s claims to the West Bank and Gaza Strip and remove Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein from power. Toppling Iraq’s Baathists, the paper’s authors argued, was a necessary first step toward transforming the Middle East and destabilizing other enemies of Israel in the region — namely Syria, Saudi Arabia and Iran.

 

The Arab press labeled the paper a “U.S.-Israeli neoconservative manifesto” because of its call for regime changes. And Arab Americans, such as James Zogby, president of the Arab American Institute in Washington, DC., called it “disturbing.”"

 

Speaks for itself I think. Source: Detroit Jewish News.

 

 

Yes, Arafat should have been eliminated long ago. Although him being portrayed as a martyr would probably do more harm than eliminating him would do good. He has had ample opportunity to reach a workable solution and pissed it away time and time again.

 

While I appreciate your wishes to see Israel live in peace, I think you're taking a pretty one sided view of their scenario re: our need to be adamantly and vocally pro-Israel. They have more than enough firepower to defend themselves (courtesy of us) from any organized state threat. It might actually settle things down in that region if we got out of the way and let the thing come to a head. I fully support Israel's targeting and assasinations of terrorist leaders, but I do not and will not support their settlements/land grabs. Sharon actually surprised me with the recent proposals and it pains me to see the far right in his party (as if he weren't far enough right) attempt to derail the process.

 

I'm an isolationist, and firmly believe this "world policeman" role we have been trying to play since the mid 60's is sending us down a very undesirable path.

 

I'm done blathering, time for a left wing neo-con

[Fairweather]

 

If your going to use broad generalisations, back them up with facts. Or run away from them, as you do in the access debate.

 

Cj,

 

I'll entertain you one last time in the access forum...clearly you are uninformed. Try to educate yourself a little on issues you address.

[cj001f]

 

If your going to use broad generalisations, back them up with facts. Or run away from them, as you do in the access debate.

 

Cj,

 

I'll entertain you one last time in the access forum...clearly you are uninformed. Try to educate yourself a little on issues you address.

Learn how to read a map Fairweather.

[johndavidjr]

Forgive me for not reading the debate over the accuracy of Moore's inuendo. I'm a liberal journalist, and have long found Scott Simon insufferable for his sanctimony.

 

Here, if anybody cares, is what Janet Malcom, among the very the best journalists, says about her profession in a famous quote.

 

"Every journalist who is not too stupid or too full of himself to notice what is going on knows that what he does is morally indefensible."

 

 

Moore isn't a journalist. Simon is full of himself.

 

____________________

[Fairweather]

Use those optical engineering skills of yours to grind yourself some new glasses you "condesending twat".

 

BTW: I always decline those National Park brochures. They waste paper.

[cj001f]

Use those optical engineering skills of yours to grind yourself some new glasses you "condesending twat".

 

BTW: I always decline those National Park brochures. They waste paper.

I haven't visited a visitor center in 5 years, and don't you have accounts to "manage"?

[JayB]

Simon may be full of himself, loathe himself, plagued with self-doubt, have mixed feelings about his childhood, etc, etc, etc - but this has nothing to do with the accuracy or significance of the factual errors or methodological flaws in Moore's work that he raises in his critique of Moore's film.

 

I'm actually not sure what you were trying to say in your post. You stated that you aren't familiar with the facts and ask for forgiveness, quote a journalist that who says that journalism is morally indefensible, then restate the known by saying that Simon is a journalist and Moore is not. Is this some kind of round-about double syllogism?

 

1.

What all journalists do is morally indefensible.

Moore is not a journalist.

What Moore does is not morally indefensible.

 

2.

What all journalists do is morally indefensible.

Scott Simon is a journalist.

What Scott Simon does is indefensible.

 

Cosmic. I think that the argument would be stronger in Haiku form.

[Fairweather]

indefensible

overweight fraud needs more cash

half truths are just lies

[foraker]

Being a scientist, I like equations. The only equation I know of in politics that I can trust is:

 

Politician = Liar

 

I've found this to be pretty much true regardless of their political orientation. It all comes down to: who's lies are you willing to stomach?

[johndavidjr]

Simon is holding Moore to the standards of journalism, about which Simon is terminally sanctimonious, to the point that he's always made me want to retch.

 

Moore, however, isn't a journalist & doesn't suggest otherwise. He is, however, careful with the precise facts used in film & does use them to make questionable inferences, in a few instances, which as an informed person, I find merely a tad humorous, yet this I suppose is Simon's indignant point.

 

Moore's inferences would be a problem, perhaps, if the aim is to present something other than opinion. This isn't Moore's aim. Nor is it the aim of Rush Limbaugh, who uses "facts" in a similar manner.

 

Why doesn't the Wall Street Journal publish a critique of Mr. Limbaugh (instead of occassionally publishing his essays?). Clearly Limbaugh has had far greater influence than Moore & seems to get far less scruitiny.

 

As for the Malcom quote, my thoughts aren't easy to express, but unfair manipulation of "sources" in journalism is the coin of the realm & Simon, with his sappy reporting, is a master at doing so. Facts are a different question, but not entirely unrelated.

 

 

___________

[snoboy]

I'm voting for Will.

[johndavidjr]

Here is the point Simon tries to make; The review entirely misses the point of the film. Simon is smart enough to know this, but nenetheless writes:

 

"The main premise of Mr. Moore's recent work is that both Presidents Bush have been what amounts to Manchurian Candidates of the Saudi royal family. Mr. Moore suggests ... the Saudi government, having soured on their pawns for unstated reasons, launched the attacks of Sept. 11."

[j_b]

Simon may be full of himself, loathe himself, plagued with self-doubt, have mixed feelings about his childhood, etc, etc, etc - but this has nothing to do with the accuracy or significance of the factual errors or methodological flaws in Moore's work that he raises in his critique of Moore's film.

 

there are no significant factual errors in F9/11. "methodological flaws"? what are you talking about?

 

what i find most amusing is that you guys (and simon in the piece above) are precisely doing what you reproach to mmoore in f9/11. you distort what he says (for example the post 9/11 saudi flights and interviews which he got right), pretend that he infers what he does not infer (he never suggests that bush1&2 are manchurian candidates for the saudis, nor does he suggest that the house of saud per se is behind 9/11). as a matter of fact, mmoore does not make grand statements in f9/11, he mostly shows footage that we did not see, adds a few comments and facts and lets people come to their own conclusions. of course anyone with half a brain would not formulate a favorable opinon of bush on the basis of the facts presented but moore never pretended otherwise. i challenge anyone to find a unique vision of the bush/saud relationship in f9/11. people should come to different interpretations based on their prior knowledge of the subject. in that sequence, i felt he was primarily discussing the ethical conflict for individuals who were representing the state and their own financial interests, the ominous consequences of our need for oil and the enormous reality of saudi investments in the us.

 

I would suggest again that you go see the movie so that you at least have the appearance of knowing what you are discussing but i am afraid that you'd find a way to distort f9/11 anyway.

[JayB]

"it is likely that control of afghanistan and transfer of central asian oil played a critical role in *triggering* the 9/11 attack (even though it had been planned long before)"

 

Flesh this one out - should be great reading.

 

My Quote:

"There were plans to do this at one time - during the Clinton administration - but they were discarded by the oil company prior to the Bush's innauguration. Such plans could always be revived at some point, but the guy has no evidence whatsoever to support the assertion that such considerations motivated the attack."

 

Your response

 

"except for the negotiating that took place with the taliban up to August 01, when the bushies told them to behave or be ready to get squashed"

 

This is classic. You say that the administration was negotiating with the Taliban until August of 01, and leave it at that. What you are implying, of course, is that the administration was actively negotiating with the Taliban in an effort to pave the way for the construction of an oil pipline through Afghanistan, and the Taliban refused so the US attacked. The record seems to show that the administration was negotiating with the Taliban, but were doing so as part of an ongoing effort to fund a campaign to help Afhghanis involved in farming Opium poppies to switch to other crops. This is something rather different than what your statement implies. But that's the point isn't it?

 

Speaking of your statement, in it you also seem to be implying that the administration knew about the attacks in advance and permitted them so that the US would have a pretext to attack Afhganistan and build the pipeline? If not this, then what - exactly - are you claiming when you state that the administration told the Taliban to "behave or get ready to get squashed?"

 

As far as the movie is concerned, it's central claims are secret - so it's hardly necessary to see the movie to debate them. I have never seen "Triumph of the Will" either, but I am nonetheless familiar with its content and the ends which it was attempting to further. I have yet to read "The Protocols of the Elders of Zion," but again - I am familiar with both its claims and the agenda which it wishes to advance and am thus in a position to dispute both of them. I will see the movie eventually, once I can do so without contributing a cent to Michael Moore.

[RobBob]

josama_bin_laden

 

"There are no factual errors in f9/11!"

[j_b]

There are different versions of the content of negotiations that took place with the taliban through summer 2001. i am certain that if you tried you'd find numerous articles, books, etc .. that provide perspectives that differ from what the bush adminiistration has to say about it. are you seriously still at the stage of accepting uncritically what bush&co say they did? no wonder you are marginalized relative to public opinion.

 

This is classic. You say that the administration was negotiating with the Taliban until August of 01, and leave it at that. What you are implying, of course, is that the administration was actively negotiating with the Taliban in an effort to pave the way for the construction of an oil pipline through Afghanistan, and the Taliban refused so the US attacked.

 

i am not infering anything. that is what a number of reports by respected individuals say happened (and more). again if you tried you'd easily find such accounts on the web. i personally don't know how much of that is true but it is certainly as believable (and it is certainly more consistent with events) than the official version. are there plans today to construct said pipeline? are the bushies currently in bed with the dictators of central asia where large reserves of oil and gas are to be found?

 

farming Opium poppies to switch to other crops. This is something rather different than what your statement implies. But that's the point isn't it?

 

of course it is different. as a matter of fact opium production is reaching record highs in afghanistan today. recent developments indeed indicate that poppy cultivation is not a priority for this administration.

 

Speaking of your statement, in it you also seem to be implying that the administration knew about the attacks in advance and permitted them so that the US would have a pretext to attack Afhganistan and build the pipeline?

 

poppycock. i certainly do not infer prior knowledge. however, if some of these stories are right, one would think that they should have been aware of the possibility of retaliation.

 

If not this, then what - exactly - are you claiming when you state that the administration told the Taliban to "behave or get ready to get squashed?"

 

imperial hubris and incompetence. there is no need to invoke conspiracy when inadequacy in dealing with reality does just fine in explaining what happened.

 

As far as the movie is concerned, it's central claims are secret - so it's hardly necessary to see the movie to debate them.

 

huh? secret? are you missing a *not* in there?

 

you certainly do need to see the movie to differentiate between what people say moore says and what he does indeed say (assuming your zealousness in trying to discredit him allows you to hear/see what the movie does)

 

I will see the movie eventually, once I can do so without contributing a cent to Michael Moore.

 

moore encourages anyone willing to pirate the movie off the internet.