Classic Michael Moore right here.
“The irony of Moore — who ambushes executives and politicians on film with their own statements — apparently trying to erase his own words was too rich even for some of his fans.”
At least Kerry showed some serious grace and class yesterday. Moore doesn’t want to be confused with the facts, not unlike a lot of Bush and Kerry supporters.
In other news, there was an eBay auction where you could bid on Michael Moore’s relevance. The bidding was hot because soon this will be a rare or non-existent item. Unfortunately the auction was removed. Apparently eBay doesn’t tolerate auctions of items that do not actually exist.
The democrats are going to have to do some soul-searching and try to come up with something a bit better than Clinton and/or Edwards for 2008. And for heaven’s sake don’t let Moore endorse the candidate!
My take on the election: regardless of the outcome, I’m glad it’s over. Maybe I’ll be seeing less pictures of Bush flags stuck in turds and variations on the Kerry “flip-flop” theme now and more serious discussion about how the country can move forward and unite.
Tags: Personal
November 4th, 2004 at 3:51 pm
Yeah, he obviously has a responsibility to keep information now irrelevant around forever. It’s just like Enron. Overall, your political commentary is very enlightening.
November 4th, 2004 at 3:56 pm
I just read somewhere (forget where) about Hillary now being torpedoed for 2008, as another from the NE was not elected, that being Kerry. The article also commented that Moore is going to immediately start supporting Hillary - my thought is that will do more harm than good.
November 5th, 2004 at 1:07 am
FWIW, this sort of thing happens on both sides whenver they figure that a foot was stuck in mouth, Check out day 52 at http://www.mcsweeneys.net/links/bush/ for a dose of classic Bush.
Somewhat off topic, my personal favorite is nearby - check out day 53 as well. Day 115 is a gem as well. Gotta love the source on that one…
Yep, I’m bitter.
November 5th, 2004 at 7:54 am
Dude, what’s your problem? If you think Michael Moore is irrelevant, why do you keep discussing him? It’s amazing… With all going on, all you can think about is collecting sniglets of incoherence about what he did.
If you think he is irrelevant, forget him. He has much weaker influence, than, say, Fox News. And I don’t remember you ever pointing out their incoherence. Not to mention Bush & co.
If you really want to impress people by debunking “liberal lies”, or whatever, I suggest you try Chomsky or something. I fail to see what you want to accomplish by going repeatedly at Moore, specially with such irrelevant minutiae.
November 5th, 2004 at 8:33 am
Irrelevant minutiae???
The man has made MILLIONS off of the tragedy and deaths of soldiers and civilians alike, worldwide. The man has no shame and is willing to lie, cheat, and deceive to further his own ends, no matter what the cost.
And if you have read some of Jamin’s other posts, he often criticizes BOTH sides for the same type of chicanery.
November 5th, 2004 at 9:52 am
OK, look, even supposing that you’re right, that Michael Moore is a lying bastard who makes up everything he says, if you choose to go after him, systematically, instead of the ones he accuses of committing atrocious crimes (much more vicious than the ones you accuse Moore of doing), you are implicitly siding up with them.
In simpler terms: Moore accuses the Bush administration of waging war with obviously false pretenses, and admittedly taking on a unilateral world police stance, and you accuse him of using statistics that are 5% off, shadowy evidence regarding some minor point or other, and taking off a letter from his website. Are you saying that what he accused the government of doing is not true?
I do think that Michael Moore should think twice before putting out stuff that is dubious and sometimes refutable, as he sometimes unnecessarily does. But they are always irrelevant when you consider that the most of the evidence supporting his claims is overwhelmingly clear, and even confirmed by the accused.
To be fair, I agree that his tactics are sometimes Machiavellian, and that he sometimes chooses subtle distortion to carry his point, and that this does more harm than good, specially because those distortion are often utterly unnecessary. I condemn him for that, but labeling him a big fat liar, when most of his main points are irrefutable is just not right.
November 5th, 2004 at 1:10 pm
Most of his points are irrefutable, so that means he’s not a big fat liar? Hmmm.
Jamin has animal hair all over his house. I’ve also seen that he keeps food on the floor in a dish for his pet. He even bought a small costume for halloween for Gorfin to wear.
So far, these are the types of arguments Moore uses. But then, he follows up with making a statement like “Therefore, Jamin has a small dog.” Which, by the way, is completely false. Jamin, in fact, has a cat. You can lie through your teeth by making people get lost in the details in order to arrive at a conclusion that is 100% false even while every single one of your facts is undeniably true.
And so, yes, I DO believe that much of what he accuses other people of doing is false. Knowing how he likes to twist his evidence to suit his agenda, I research as many different places as possible, weighing them as intelligently as I can.
November 5th, 2004 at 4:09 pm
I have yet to see one public figure, or one political party that has not twisted their evidence to suit their agenda. I believe there are many people who also have no shame and are willing to lie, cheat, and deceive to further their own ends, no matter what the cost.
Mr. Moore does not stand alone. I would also offer that Mr. Moore is not the only person to make money off of the tragedy and deaths of soldiers and civilians. Perhaps he is simply employing the same tactics used by his detractors. If indeed the subjects of Mr. Moore have nothing to hide, then why the devensive posture? While I do agree, at times Mr. Moore builds cases much like Johnny Cochoran defending OJ, it’s the video that appears difficult to discredit. When I see the “victims” of Mr. Moore in action, I can’t just dismiss that as propaganda. Video tells a lot… just ask Paris Hilton.
November 5th, 2004 at 4:33 pm
Which video are you refering to?
Creative editing can go a LONG way. Much of the items Moore uses in his movies is carefully selected and edited to paint the picture he wants. Take Roger&Me for example. The entire premise of the movie was him attempting to get an interview with the boss of GM in Flint, MI. What the film DOESN’T show you, is that he DID, in fact, get that interview. Kind of shoots the whole premise of the movie down the crapper, but hey, we can just edit that out.
November 5th, 2004 at 5:59 pm
While I don’t know anything about him getting that interview, your argument is a good example of deliberately missing the whole point. If, again, we suppose you’re correct, and that in fact Moore interviewed Roger Smith (he actually does manage to ask him a couple of questions in the film, and I assume you’re not referring to that), that would certainly prove your point that he misled the audience.
What it would _not_ prove, and is the reason why I think you miss the whole point, is that the following is false: General Motors did massive layouts which degraded absurdly the life conditions in Flint, while maintaining huge profits, and the same is done in other places and by other companies, and is nowadays common practice. And also that labor rights in the US are worse than in some third world countries.
So no, even if he lied, while it would tell a lot on his character, would not shoot the premise of the film “down the crapper”.
Now, the fact that you choose to go after Moore in tangential Ad Hominem argumentation, instead of arguing his main points tells a lot, you know…
Ps. I would like some source on your claim that he interviewed Roger Smith and chose not to put it in the film. Even Moore, whom you accuse of being a cheat, quotes his sources.
November 5th, 2004 at 7:23 pm
And so now, of course, I cannot remember where I read about Moore interviewing Roger Smith, I just know I’ve read that fact in more than one place. So I’ll withdraw that until I can find something more than second hand.
As far as the idea of “ad hominem attacks,” that statement is, in itself, misleading. Usually ad hominem attacks are meant to deflect people from the actual topic while discrediting the messenger. In this case, what you perceive as ad hominem attacks, are simple statements of truth about Moore’s methods. Further, they are relevant because they are not isolated.
Moore uses falsehoods and twisted facts for EVERY point he ever makes. If his arguments are so strong, why is his *ENTIRE* premise build around lies? If there were a couple of mistakes, I can write that off to gaps in memory or lack of research. But we’re talking about HIS ENTIRE MOVIE. Many argue that his POINT is what is important, not his methods. But when his point CANNOT BE MADE without his methods, what then?
You talk about addressing GM and their impact on Flint, MI. Well, many people have addressed that point about his film, and if you are truly interested in a full rebuttal, I’m sure you can find at least one, as this is not the best forum for polital-socioeconomic debate.
However, to avoid getting blasted for recommending research, I will say that the plant closings in Flint are more indicative of a Free-Market Capitalist economy, which Moore denounces every chance he gets. The plant closing may have degraded life in Flint, but one must ask what caused the plant closing. Obviously, if the plant were rather profitable, it wouldn’t have closed, for a variety of reasons. But due to the Union groups in the northern Mid-West (and the rest of the country), many such plants lose profit margin faster than you can say “Union Yes.”
Yes, GM has a duty to its workers, but they also have a duty to GM. When Union labour becomes cost prohibitive, and they still demand MORE money, there is only one option. Essentially, Unions often set themselves up for a fall in a situation like this. Add to that the fact that the GM President has a duty to GM Shareholders as well, of which there are far more than the number of employees in Flint.
So, perhaps I chose “to go after Moore in tangential Ad Hominem argumentation, instead of arguing his main points ” because I assumed everyone realized most of his main points to have been thoroughly debunked by experts already, as a modicum of research into economic theory would show. Or perhaps not.
But yes, in many ways, if you cannot be trusted to tell the truth, usually your premise is shot to hell, as NONE of your facts can be trusted without a great deal of independant investigation, which is usually beyond the scope of one of Moore’s “documentaries” (which even he often claims are merely satire and not meant to be taken so seriously.)
November 6th, 2004 at 3:25 pm
“amen.” ……………………
November 8th, 2004 at 7:41 pm
“…voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.”
–Herman Goering– April 18 1946
November 9th, 2004 at 11:28 am
“All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing”
- Edmund Burke