|
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 |
Kimchi Cowboy
Joined: 17 Sep 2006
|
 Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:15 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| cbclark4 wrote: |
So you approve of Micchael Moore's form of propaganda?
cbc |
So then, it seems that you approve of the propaganda of Bush, et al?
Maybe it's just as simple as: Bush's lies are better than Moore's lies, hmm?
Yes, Bush is wealthy, from "good breeding", wears nice suits, surrounds himself with powerful people, and is, after all, the PRESIDENT, so of course what he says has more merit!
Michael Moore is fat, has long-and-greasy hair, is poorly-dressed (t-shirts and jeans? Heaven forfend!), and makes controversial films for a living. No, his ideas must clearly be discounted and ridiculed. Attack the messenger, ignore the message, is that it?
EVERYONE bends the truth to suit their own needs. Moore's filmmaking style indeed opens itself up to criticism and in-depth investigation, as any - ANY - documentary should be. Should not the actions of the PRESIDENT be less open to the same sort of criticism and investigation, or should we just trust the guy 'cause he wears a nice tie? |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh my god, the link in my previous post (here it is again: http://www.overcast.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/f911/hitch-moore.htm) is the most spectacular pounding I've ever seen. I'm so glad I'm not Christopher Hitchens because he got severely schooled - I actually sympathise even though I support the winners!
Almost every single sentence of Hitchens' article is completely crushed.
As Octavius said in his OP, criticisms of Moore are for the most part total crap. Having read the above incredibly long destruction of Hitchens - who Gopher cited as an authoritative opponent of Moore - I'm even more convinced. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pligganease
Joined: 14 Sep 2004
Location: The deep south...
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| 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. |
And here I thought another poster was the biggest vinegar/water combination on this board... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 23, 2006 11:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| 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: |
| Hitchens - who Gopher cited as an authoritative opponent of Moore ... |
With respect to the far left's almost always making its case for the prosecution so fast that it never takes the time to review the evidence, to pay its targets, opponents, or critics the courtesy of not mischaracterizing them or their motives, not to mention enhancing said evidence and motives to suit their political ends (which they assure us are quite commendable, indeed righteous), ladies and gentlemen, with this perfect example of exactly what I mean, I rest my case.
| Spinoza wrote: |
| the winners |
As long as people are blatantly appealing to our emotions through simplistic, allegation-driven, factually-problematic narrative "stories" with a moral at the end, always for the purpose of manipulating us rather than reasoning with us, there are no winners, Spinoza.
I have had this discussion with several professors who feel the same way and are altering their publishing style to actually engage the public rather than other academics (and I plant my flag with them; one of the reasons I continue to post here, by the way): we should be educating the public, engaging them and enhancing their critical thinking skills, explaining that the certainty/security they seek in absolute answers to the issues is nonexistent, and we should not distract them with circus shows a la Michael Moore. Indeed, we should move as a professional body to deflate the hyperbole that dominates the media today, even when our worldviews clash and we disagree on the issues.
That you do not (or, perhaps more appropriately will not) see these contemptible and most undemocratic problems in Moore's books and films is unsurprising. I think I pegged you pretty accurately early on in this thread, which has been my first substantive exchange of views with you. That you found an article which has reassuringly confirmed your politics is unremarkable, even predictable.
But it is alarming that your head is in the sand. And, moreover, you would back a potential tyrant, if not join him in perpetrating human rights abuses on his and your opponents, people you have already dehumanized -- as indicated in your own posts above.
Last edited by Gopher on Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:13 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 12:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Spinoza wrote: |
Almost every single sentence of Hitchens' article is completely crushed.
As Octavius said in his OP, criticisms of Moore are for the most part total crap. |
You completely ignored the very long post I put up. I thought you were supposed to be open-minded on the issue?
Hitchens is not the only person who is critical of Moore's assertions.
| Kimchi Cowboy wrote: |
So then, it seems that you approve of the propaganda of Bush, et al?
Maybe it's just as simple as: Bush's lies are better than Moore's lies, hmm? |
No. The problem is not that all criticisms of Bush are wrong per se, its that many of Moore's criticisms are off the mark.
Moore suggests that Bush has connections to the Carlyle group. Wrong. The transactions Moore draws between the Carlyle group and Bin Laden happened during a period when nobody in the Bush family was involved in the Carlyle group.
Moore suggests that Bush was not interested in prosecuting the war against Afghanistan seriously. Possible, but nothing Moore shows us significantly advances that claim. Indeed, most of the information he gives us are distortions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SPINOZA
Joined: 10 Jun 2005
Location: $eoul
|
| Posted: Sun Dec 24, 2006 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Kuros wrote: |
| Spinoza wrote: |
Almost every single sentence of Hitchens' article is completely crushed.
As Octavius said in his OP, criticisms of Moore are for the most part total crap. |
You completely ignored the very long post I put up. I thought you were supposed to be open-minded on the issue?
Hitchens is not the only person who is critical of Moore's assertions.
| Kimchi Cowboy wrote: |
So then, it seems that you approve of the propaganda of Bush, et al?
Maybe it's just as simple as: Bush's lies are better than Moore's lies, hmm? |
No. The problem is not that all criticisms of Bush are wrong per se, its that many of Moore's criticisms are off the mark.
Moore suggests that Bush has connections to the Carlyle group. Wrong. The transactions Moore draws between the Carlyle group and Bin Laden happened during a period when nobody in the Bush family was involved in the Carlyle group.
Moore suggests that Bush was not interested in prosecuting the war against Afghanistan seriously. Possible, but nothing Moore shows us significantly advances that claim. Indeed, most of the information he gives us are distortions. |
The bold lacks justification.
Apologies however. I did not ignore you. It's just that Hitchens' spectacular schooling diverted my attention, quite frankly, for much of my Christmas Eve 2006.
On closer inspection of the link I've provided, some (maybe not all, I'm not sure) of your objections to Moore appear to have been refuted by those observers.
In any case, I remain largely happy with the content of Moore's F911 and do not envisage ever encountering complete rebuttal of Moore and his question-asking in F911.
I also feel no compulsion to accept (and also forgot to address, in my amour for the above crushing of Hitchens) Gopher's observations dealing specifically with a film made by Moore in 1989. How do these conclusions - assuming they are the gospel truth - affect the general value or otherwise of a movie like 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Farenheit 911'? Must one dismiss Moore's questions about the Bush administration because of controversies surrounding previous, unrelated Moore findings? Because of 'Roger and Me's controversies, it simply follows that subsequent movies lack truth or value and Moore is forever dismissed? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 7:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
The bold lacks justification.
On closer inspection of the link I've provided, some (maybe not all, I'm not sure) of your objections to Moore appear to have been refuted by those observers.
In any case, I remain largely happy with the content of Moore's F911 and do not envisage ever encountering complete rebuttal of Moore and his question-asking in F911.
|
I do not envisage you accepting such a rebuttal. The bold I put up before, that Moore is responsible for a great deal of distortion in terms of the Taliban debate, stands well. Here are my points again, and I ask that you show me how your source, designed to refute Hitchens, is able to counter these claims.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
Either Michael Moore said in the movie that it was the US that gave aid to the Taliban, whereas it was actually provided by the UN and NGOs, or he didn't.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
The link you gave us surrounds the Richard Clarke controversy and testimonies. And while the link you gave demonstrates that Richard Clarke's claims undermines any idea that a close business connection between Bush and the Bin Ladens determined the reason for the flight, it does not at all address my point. Why would Michael Moore attach such importance to a flight that went out after general air traffic was resumed?
| 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. |
| Quote: |
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.) |
This is not at all addressed by your link.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
Nothing in your link about this.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
This is addressed by your link.
| SB wrote: |
| What Moore didn't add, to his detriment, is that Unocal suspended its role in August 1998 and then withdrew in December 1998, citing "low oil prices and turmoil in Afghanistan" as making the pipeline project uneconomical and too risky (Osama bin Laden being the meddlesome "show stopper"). That said � and this is an important point � the basic, underlying plan was never completely discarded; rather, it was put on hold pending a softening of attitudes (evidenced by video footage of a Taliban emissary visiting the U.S. in March 2001) or until an internationally recognised Afghanistan government was in place (regime change, anyone?). As Jean-Charles Brisard and Guillaume Dasquie argue in their book, Forbidden Truth: U.S.-Taliban Secret Oil Diplomacy and the Failed Hunt for bin Laden, "the U.S. thought they could 'decouple' Osama bin Laden from the Taliban", but successive U.S. administrations took few of the necessary steps that would have placed the protection of human life ahead of a narrow set of economic and political interests, which included not offending their Saudi friends. |
Your link agrees with the fact that Unocal withdrew from the deal in 1998. It then adds some commentary, about what that is supposed to mean and how it relates to Bush. However, your own link confirms that while Bush was President, Unocal was not actively working on (it claims Unocal was passively waiting for) a deal with Afghanistan for an oil pipeline.
| Quote: |
| 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. |
Another lame smear on Moore's part, that clears up after one finds out the back-story. Your link provides no information on this.
As I said before, I wouldn't say Moore outright lied in Fahrenheit 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 Fahrenheit 9/11 which showed that Fahrenheit 9/11 was more presentation than substance.
Oh, and because of these distortions, but not completely dependent upon the fact that he distorted a lot of the situation in his movie, Moore's thesis itself sucks. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon Dec 25, 2006 9:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| SPINOZA wrote: |
| I also feel no compulsion to accept...observations dealing specifically with a film made by Moore in 1989. How do these conclusions...affect the general value or otherwise of a movie like 'Bowling for Columbine' [or] 'Farenheit 911'? Must one dismiss Moore's questions about the Bush administration because of controversies surrounding previous, unrelated Moore findings? Because of 'Roger and Me's controversies, it simply follows that subsequent movies lack truth or value and Moore is forever dismissed? |
I do not ask you "to forever dismiss" anything, Spinoza. Just do not be so naive about Moore.
By the way, patterns do not interest you? Since at least as early as Roger and Me, Moore's cynicism has consumed him. Full of hatred and bile. Standard leftist discourse, in fact. Tragically, you cannot see this. You nod your head "yes" too eagerly.
 |
|
| 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
