|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| I've never seen any of his films or read any of his books... |
...but you are going to jump into this discussion defending the man anyway, just because you don't like Bill O'Riley? Come on.
I, too, strongly disagree with O'Riley and others -- Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh immediately come to mind -- but I have seen enough of Moore's "work" to know b.s. when I see it.
And calling him "scholarly" represents the height of absurdity. He failed to even graduate college.
You can take this or leave it, Ya-ta. But at least look at Moore and his assertions before defending his methods and applauding his politics. Or at least listen to what some of those who claim he has maligned them are saying...
| Quote: |
A few years ago Michael Moore, who's now promoting an anti-President Bush movie entitled Fahrenheit 9/11, announced he'd gotten the goods on me, indeed hung me out to dry on my own words. It was in his first bestselling book, Stupid White Men. Moore wrote he'd once been "forced" to listen to my comments on a TV chat show, The McLaughlin Group. I had whined "on and on about the sorry state of American education," Moore said, and wound up by bellowing: "These kids don't even know what The Iliad and The Odyssey are!"
Moore's interest was piqued, so the next day he said he called me. "Fred," he quoted himself as saying, "tell me what The Iliad and The Odyssey are." I started "hemming and hawing," Moore wrote. And then I said, according to Moore: "Well, they're . . . uh . . . you know . . . uh . . . okay, fine, you got me -- I don't know what they're about. Happy now?" He'd smoked me out as a fraud, or maybe worse.
The only problem is none of this is true. It never happened. Moore is a liar. He made it up. It's a fabrication on two levels... |
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/05/24/opinion/main619287.shtml
And Spinoza: you are either a partisan or so far out of the loop over there in Korea that you truly lack familiarity with what I reviewed for you in my post. So sorry, I am not going to come here and reinvent the wheel with respect to the credibility issues that surround Michael Moore. |
This information in that link is not evidence that Moore's assertions are wrong. It's also a weak source, full of colloquialisms.
It does not follow that Moore's work lacks scholarlyness from the assertion that he didn't graduate college.
I said that Moore's books have a list of sources and references, as I recall. Moore seeks to back his points up rather than merely assert. Is this not the case? Are Moore's citations incorrect?
I wanna see a complete refutation of Moore. I wanna see real evidence of deliberate misinformation, not evidence of one-sidedness. If not, I shall continue to accept his theses to some extent and consider him a very worthwhile opponent of Right Wing America and the disgusting subhuman pollution that festers there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| Pligganease wrote: |
I think Michael Moore's movies are very entertaining, but anyone who tkes them as factual documentaries is a complete idiot *cough* OH *cough* or has a serious agenda against the U.S. government.
We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies. The second, shortest part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number). So this part, at least arguably, presents useful information. The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false. |
Oh good Lord.
*We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies.
Yup, full of lies, we know. But where please?
*The second, shortest part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number).
And what conclusion does the author feel I should draw from this observation about the free toll number? Assuming this indeed false, okay, and?
*The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false
The bold lacks justification and doesn't even follow from the premises. |
Read the damned link, please. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pligganease wrote: |
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| Pligganease wrote: |
I think Michael Moore's movies are very entertaining, but anyone who tkes them as factual documentaries is a complete idiot *cough* OH *cough* or has a serious agenda against the U.S. government.
We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies. The second, shortest part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number). So this part, at least arguably, presents useful information. The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false. |
Oh good Lord.
*We can divide the film into three major parts. The first part (Bush, Saudi Arabia, Afghanistan) is so permeated with lies that most of the scenes amount to lies.
Yup, full of lies, we know. But where please?
*The second, shortest part involves domestic issues and the USA PATRIOT Act. So far, I've identified only one clear falsehood in this segment (Rep. Porter Goss's toll-free number).
And what conclusion does the author feel I should draw from this observation about the free toll number? Assuming this indeed false, okay, and?
*The third part, on Iraq, has several outright falsehoods--such as the Saddam regime's murder of Americans, and the regime's connection with al Qaeda. Other scenes in the third part--such as Iraqi casualties, interviews with American soldiers, and the material on bereaved mother Lila Lipscomb--are not blatant lies; but the information presented is so extremely one-sided (the only Iraqi casualties are innocents, nobody in Iraq is grateful for liberation, all the American soldiers are disillusioned, except for the sadists) that the overall picture of the Iraq War is false
The bold lacks justification and doesn't even follow from the premises. |
Read the damned link, please. |
I can't be arsed. The bit you quoted sucked beyond belief and I see little reason to pursue the rest, given you presumably think the bit you quoted is the most meaty bit. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| I wanna see... |
You challenged me when I mentioned Moore's appealing to emotion and his inciting the far left's righteous outrage, remember?
It has something to do with bringing people like you to a state where reasoned debate is no longer possible, where only angry allegations and counter-allegations remain. And, moreoever, closed-mindedness predominates. Hardly helpful in a democratic environment where constructive debate, above all else, is increasingly needed.
In any case, there is nothing that I could posssibly present here that would satisfy you and change your mind, Spinoza. You know what you know and that is that.
Again, good for you. But Moore will only continue to appeal to those who are already caught up in his extremist politics, not unlike...
| Spinoza wrote: |
| ...and the disgusting subhuman pollution that festers there. |
...yourself.
Another leftist extremist, a malcontent, full of bile, caught up in rigid but artificial either/or choices, who righteously believes that two wrongs make a right, and that the ends justify the means.
I wager you have it in your head that, since I object to Moore, then I must be a non-thinking, overly-patriotic W. Bush defender, no? Part of America's "festering, disgusting subhuman pollution?" Thanks but no thanks. I think I just wasted my time here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 5:49 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Apologies for the pollution comment. That was very rude and, yes, I'm angry as hell and wanna see right wing America get anally raped. Damn! There I go again.
Still waiting for the lies. I know I'm rude, but I've asked you to comment specifically on Moore's lies and inaccuracies and you've actually refused. Can you at least refer me to previous threads discussing the matter for me to pursue? Remember - if Moore's as wrong as you folks say, I'll reject any association I once had with Moore's views. I'm risking complete ridicule on my beloved Daves. I wanna see Moore crushed to justify the boo boys. Until then.....I'm sorry, but I'm pretty happy with Moore's findings. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| ...I'm pretty happy with Moore's findings. |
No doubt you are.
But you have studiously ignored the two human subjects -- Fred Barnes and Sgt. Peter Damon -- who have gone on the record with strong objections that Moore not only cited them out of context, but manipulated their interview in the editing process to mischaracterize their views and/or outright fabricated their responses to support his "research findings." You call this mere one-sidedness. But Moore has crossed the line and waded into propaganda territory.
You do not seem to object to this, because you applaud his aims. That is, again, your right. But stop this stubborn refusal to recognize what Moore is doing.
No academic or scholarly press would tolerate such liberties with human subjects. As you may or may not know, some of us value intellectual honesty and integrity and not all of us fall back into defining our work as "satire" when pressed on such issues... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| ...I'm pretty happy with Moore's findings. |
No doubt you are.
But you have studiously ignored the two human subjects -- Fred Barnes and Sgt. Peter Damon -- who have gone on the record with strong objections that Moore not only cited them out of context, but manipulated their interview in the editing process to mischaracterize their views and/or outright fabricated their responses to support his "research findings." You call this mere one-sidedness. But Moore has crossed the line and waded into propaganda territory.
|
I haven't studiously ignored it. I did the opposite of ignore the article in the OP, where the case against Moore collapsed.
Why are you still pursuing this argument, at least with regard to Damon?
| Quote: |
| No academic or scholarly press would tolerate such liberties with human subjects |
"Sgt Damon appeared for 16 seconds out of a 2-hour and 10-minute film and that the quotes were used verbatim and not manipulated to make him appear to hold an anti-war viewpoint"
(the link in the OP)
| Quote: |
| As you may or may not know, some of us value intellectual honesty and integrity and not all of us fall back into defining our work as "satire" when pressed on such issues... |
I would be very disappointed in Moore if he described himself as a mere satirist as opposed to a commentator whose findings are of at least some basis and authority. This is critical in my view of Moore....can you please (for the 2nd time) show me where he said this? And can you also say what conclusion you suggest I draw from this regarding the general truth or otherwise of Moore's findings? It is not logically unreasonable for satire to have true content, even assuming Moore's work qualifies as satire anyway, which it clearly does not, hence my surprise at this apparent assertion of Moore. Does he not know what the word means?
And I'm very sceptical of your claim that you and other opponents of Moore oppose Moore because you "value intellectual honesty and integrity". No other things whatsoever.....political leanings perhaps? Support for the war? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Spinoza wrote: |
| And I'm very sceptical of your claim that you and other opponents of Moore oppose Moore because you "value intellectual honesty and integrity". No other things whatsoever.....political leanings perhaps? Support for the war...? |
Here we go! You cannot understand my objections to Moore. Therefore, my motive must be to defend the war. T-minus ten minutes before some shrill voice comes along and starts screaming about mass-destruction weapons...
My Education of Spinoza: Volume I.
Harlan Jacobson and Pauline Kael questioned Michael Moore's factual accuracy after he released Roger and Me.
See Harlan Jacobson, "Michael and Me," Film Comment 25 (1989): 16-26; and Pauline Kael, "The Current Cinema: Melodrama/Cartoon/Mess," The New Yorker, 8 January 1990, 91.
Miles Orvell responded. He defended Moore in "Documentary Film and the Power of Interrogation: 'American Dream' and 'Roger and Me,'" Film Quarterly (1994): 10-18.
Ovell responded to Jacobson and Kael with these words...
| Miles Orvell wrote: |
| It is impossible now to discuss Roger and Me without taking into account some of these objections, but Moore's critics have, I think, asked the wrong questions of the film, failing to assess accurately its purpose. We should worry about whether Moore has violated the ethics of documentary -- a question I want to come back to -- but we must also observe the degree to which Moore successfully interrogates the whole premise of traditional documentary form that Kopple, incidentally, accepts...Jacobson questions the factual inaccuracies in the film, and he is of course right to do so...Moore has sacrificed historical accuracy in order to achieve the unity of satiric fiction...Those whom Moore does ridicule (and there are indeed many) are simply given enough rope to hang themselves with. Unlike Kael, I do not feel sorry for Miss Michigan (and Miss America) 1988... |
pp. 14-15.
That is, Spinoza, even Moore's apologists recognize what you refuse to... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
...then there is Christopher Hitchens, Spinoza...
| Christopher Hitchens wrote: |
| 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...A film that bases itself on a big lie and a big misrepresentation can only sustain itself by a dizzying succession of smaller falsehoods, beefed up by wilder and (if possible) yet more-contradictory claims. |
http://www.slate.com/id/2102723/
Do you place Christopher Hitchens in the "festering, disgusting subhuman pollution" that makes up America's evil right wing?
And on your summary -- "the case against Moore collapsed" -- this is not entirely true. The judge dismissed Damon's complaint that Moore had defamed him. "The [much broader] case against Moore," or, I would say, "the objections some of us raise with respect to Moore" was not at issue in that courtroom.
Last edited by Gopher on Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:04 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ya-ta Boy
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Location: Established in 1994
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
...but you are going to jump into this discussion defending the man anyway, just because you don't like Bill O'Riley? Come on.
I, too, strongly disagree with O'Riley and others -- Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh immediately come to mind -- but I have seen enough of Moore's "work" to know b.s. when I see it.
And calling him "scholarly" represents the height of absurdity. He failed to even graduate college.
You can take this or leave it, Ya-ta. But at least look at Moore and his assertions before defending his methods and applauding his politics. Or at least listen to what some of those who claim he has maligned them are saying...
|
Would it bother you too much to read what I wrote and respond to only what I write (if you feel compelled to respond at all) and not to what other posters say? Is that really asking too much?
Michael Moore is a public figure that I have little interest in, but I object to people throwing around words like 'liar' without some demonstration. I've done the same with other public figures as well, including Bush. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mithridates
Joined: 03 Mar 2003
Location: President's office, Korean Space Agency
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
| He failed to even graduate college. |
Oh my!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 7:17 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ya-ta Boy wrote: |
| Would it bother you too much to read what I wrote and respond to only what I write...? |
you said, in the context of this discussion on Michael Moore...
| Ya-ta wrote: |
| I tend to think that if Bill O'Reilly calls someone a liar, then that person is most likely a near-saint. |
Therefore, it follows that you think that since O'Riley has called Moore a liar, then Moore must be most likely a near-saint. And you said this without having read any of Moore's books or seen any of his films.
However you may feel about my response to your post, I at least hope that you have seen sufficient evidence presented in this thread that (a) this discussion does not have to be so polarized between a Satanic O'Riley and those good souls who oppose him; and (b) Michael Moore ain't no saint. 
And Spinoza: I found this gem from an earlier thread treating this issue...
| Canuckistan wrote: |
| Michael Moore is a social satirist. And he's good at it. |
I presented an interview or a series of interviews on another thread, by the way, that had Moore retreating behind his "I-merely-produce-political-satire" defense. But I can no longer locate the thread.
And this represents as far as I am going to go on this. I will not review each and every scene and show you where Moore is bending or shamelessly fabricating facts. I suspect that even if I did, you still would prefer to keep your head in the sand, however.
http://www.eslcafe.com/forums/korea/viewtopic.php?t=58191 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spinoza:
Moore tells us that the U.S. gave millions of dollars in aid ($43 million last year and $245 million in total) to the Taliban gov't while they ruled Afghanistan. The truth is that the aid was food aid and related distribution security programs given and run by the UN and other NGOs in response to a famine there.
There's the infamous Saudi flights distortion. Michael Moore claims the Bin Ladens were able to fly out of the country early, 'after Sept. 13th,' when in truth the commercial flight ban ended on Sept. 14th, which is surely 'after Sept. 13th.' Actually, even this distortion, according to Newsweek, turns out to be false.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
The entire Arbusto-Carlyle Group-BDM-Saudi family connection is distorted.
| Quote: |
Leave aside the tenuous six-degrees-of-separation nature of this �connection.� The main problem with this figure, according to Carlyle spokesman Chris Ullman, is that former president Bush didn�t join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998�five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm. True enough, the former president was paid for one speech to Carlyle and then made an overseas trip on the firm�s behalf the previous fall, right around the time BDM was sold. But Ullman insists any link between the former president�s relations with Carlyle and the Saudi contracts to BDM that were awarded years earlier is entirely bogus. �The figure is inaccurate and misleading,� said Ullman. �The movie clearly implies that the Saudis gave $1.4 billion to the Bushes and their friends. But most of it went to a Carlyle Group company before Bush even joined the firm. Bush had nothing to do with BDM.�
...The idea that the Carlyle Group is a wholly owned subsidiary of some loosely defined �Bush Inc.� concern seems hard to defend. Like many similar entities, Carlyle boasts a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. Its founding and still managing partner is David Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm�s senior advisors is Thomas �Mack� McLarty, Bill Clinton�s former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton�s former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Kennard, Clinton�s chairman of the Federal Communications Commission. Spokesman Ullman was the Clinton-era spokesman for the SEC.
As for the president�s own Carlyle link, his service on the Caterair board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor�a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was awarded. Moreover, says Ullman, Bush �didn�t invest in the [Caterair] deal and he didn�t profit from it.� (The firm was a big money loser and was even cited by the campaign of Ann Richards, Bush�s 1994 gubernatorial opponent, as evidence of what a lousy businessman he was.)
|
The clip of the Taliban envoy is the most disingenious IMO. Moore was right that a Taliban envoy visited in 2001, five months before 9-11, but Moore does not tell us that the envoy was doing so to discuss the fate of Bin Laden. Instead, Moore suggests that the administration was trying to boost the image of the Taliban in the wake of some previous business deals, and that this relationship only changed after Bin Laden bombed the Twin Towers.
Also, the Unocal deal was being considered entirely during the Clinton years, and was abandoned by the oil company in 1998. Bush had nothing to do with it. A more comprehensive and detailed treatment of oil interest in the region is covered here.
Also, check here for some more detailed information about the 'dead guy' who beat Ashcroft. The 'dead guy' was at that time the sitting Governor of Missouri, who died in a plane crash. He was very popular, and when the Lt. Gov took over, he promised he would appoint the Governor's widow to the Senate post should the deceased Governor beat John Ashcroft. So, this is the origin of the pointless smear that Ashcroft was so unpopular that he lost to a 'dead guy', a distortion that really fruits nothing nor brings forth any solid evidence of incompetence or corruption on Ashcroft's part.
I could go on, but we're hosting a Christmas Eve dinner. I wouldn't say Moore outright lied in 9/11, he had a host of fact checkers employed because of the gross errors of previous movies, but there were a flurry of articles out after 9/11 which showed that 9/11 was more presentation than substance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 8:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Gopher,
Many thanks for the Hitchens article. That's precisely the kind of thing I have in mind. I wanna see Moore crushed, not because I dislike Moore (far from it), but I wanna see justification for his Right Wing opposition as someone simply interested in the truth.
Uncritical acceptance of Hitchens is never a good idea however. A point-by-point rebuttal of Hitchens - frightfully easy to obtain - has been offered here. I'm pursuing it right now. It's extremely lengthy but essential to any interested party. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Spinoza: I have many reservations about Hitchens. I cited him to show you that more than the "right wing" objected to Michael Moore's filmmaking.
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| I wanna see justification for his Right[-]Wing opposition... |
Look, I am not the right-wing boogeyman you fear. I am not sure which I object to more: the right's treatment of Clinton; or the left's treatment of W. Bush.
I do not, of course, occupy an Olympian, "objective," or otherwise neutral perspective. But neither am I a right-wing partisan or a far leftist, either.
So I think you should accept that we can object to Micheal Moore's politics, not to mention his ubiquitous, first-person, controlling perspective as narrator, without being one of W. Bush's partisans.
I realize that I am fighting a losing battle on this issue, as I have been from the start. But that remains my position nonetheless. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
