Slashdot Mirror

BILL GATES HATES AMERICA!

Rumors have it that Michael Wilson is to do the documentary to prove it.

Damn. How ignorant.

Sorry, but the grandparent poster is right.

Liberal Attacks: "Michael Moore is a liar and a fatass. He's trying to undermine the security of this nation! He must hate America."

Patterns of Birth: "I really don't like what Bush has been doing lately, but I just couldn't bring myself to vote for a Democrat. I mean, I don't know... I just couldn't do it."

One-Issue Paramount: Bush doesn't really oppose abortion personally, he just opposes it officially because a lot of voters oppose it and consider it an important issue. He slipped up during his 2000 campaign when a reporter asked him about this.

Shared Beliefs: See this site. I'm a Christian, and although I do support a couple things Bush has done (e.g. allowing religious as well as secular charities to receive federal funding [although admittedly I haven't paid close enough attention to the details of this policy - it may have some problems]), I believe most of that has nothing to do with his own personal religious beliefs and everything to do with pandering to his right-wing constituents.

Shared Geography: Sure, he's spent time in Texas, but went to college in Conneticut... As an Oregonian I don't hear much about this from people I talk to, but I've heard of it being an issue for people from the South. What about John Edwards, though?

I would agree that a majority of Americans will make the reasoned compromise you suggest, but not the majority of voters. The people who are actually passionate enough to vote are doing so because of one of these (or some other) stupid issues, not because they've come to a reasoned compromise. The ones who do that don't bother to vote.

Two new films offer a rebuttal to the slanted views of Michael Moore. Michael Moore Hates America and FahrenHYPE 9/11 . Both are due to be released to DVD on October 5th to coincide with the DVD release of Fahrenheit 9/11. I have yet to see either of these films, but the trailers look compelling.

For an detailed rebuttal of Fahrenheit 9/11 read Fifty-nine Deceits in Fahrenheit 9/11 .

This is how our current mainstream political climate functions one of attack on character with use of a language of contradiction. Moore is engaging in that language of contradictions. All his ideas are not without merit infact I find many of them briliant, but he is engaged in a language of attacks, name-calling and taking sides. This approach diminishes his capacity for contradiction-free intellectually convincing arguments, but simultaneously allows him to be become a successful information distributor making millions of dollars reaching a large audience spawning websites that criticism/attack him etc. just like his parallels on the "right".

Christopher Hitchens pice can be compared to Al Franken book where he rips apart Ann Cultures work via an array of contradictory "facts". But I wonder how productive it is to buy into this Michael Moore bashing, I did not finish Al Frankens book because of its endless attacks of character statments rather then systemic analysis, which was entertaining but not intellectually convincing. When people ask question like why does Michael Moore hate America they are not really dealing with any ideas he might have presented, rather are engaged in endless mindless attack gibberish. In that way their criticism adopts Moores language and often fails to impress. Not that Hitchens piece was not well written, its just that it points out what should be obvious. Moore is presenting a biased one-sided perspective and from the opposite side of that perspective it is going to seem like he is sadistically lying like crazy, from a perspective with some shared values, it is going to look like he is using selective information and engaged in the language of those he is criticizing.

I don't understand why people expect to get contradiction free political commentary from someone that is admittedly bias and is perusing has a stated agenda. At least he does not say he is objective like some entities seem to be capable of claiming.

Oreilly vs Moore can help illustrates this:)

And if you think that "the other side of the story" stands up, go make a documentary showing it (it's not as if you need a huge budget or a big crew). Again, for some reason no-one has...

Actually, at least two are:

here

and here

Also: If you think anything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lie, sue Moore and get rich. I'm sure you'll find plenty of people willing to finance your legal expenses (as long as they don't have to go public). For some reason no-one has...

If this is so wrong, how come Moore or "someone" hasn't sued him? Therefore it must be correct by your "logic".

Politics is sad nowadays. I'm voting indy.

Moore Lies
Moore Exposed
Moore Watch
Michael Moore Hates America

If you do need to give it a chance, read what the other side has to say, but keep your B.S. detector on for both. Acting the windup zealot for the sake of Moore or his critics will make you look like a fool.

Or, you could save your money and watch a real documentary on PBS or BBC.

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com

I'm waiting for this movie to get released since it does the same thing to Moore that Moore does in his Mockumentaries.
Watch the trailers to see Moore on the defensive.

if Moore's film is so bad, why not make their own film

they have (title seems a little tactless to me, though)

What you have to keep in mind is that all documentaries have bias. They only seem not to because they use footage of real events to make their (often salient) points. But you have to ask yourself- what information is the maker leaving out? Have things been edited to leave an impression of how things happened different from how they actually happened?

Michael Moore was challenged on some of these points by George Stephenopolous (specifically, having to do with his asking Congressmen to sign their kids up for the military- one scene was edited to make it appear the Congressman blew Moore off, but in actuality he commented that he would look at the material and that he already had a son going to Afghanistan). Moore's response to this was to say that his work is an "op-ed" peice, not a documentary. Really? Is that what the commercials and promotions are saying about it?

I am very interested in seeing the other side of Moore, and hope to see the movie "Michael Moore Hates America" by Michael Wilson get picked up by a distributor and played where I am. Check out the trailer, it is not just conservative drivel (despite its inciting name).

I've talked to folks about the move. Some of them didnt' give a shit. Some of them already knew what the movie would say, so they went and saw Shrek 2. Some of them saw Bowling for Columbine, and afterword learned about how slanted, distorted, and basically wrong it all was, felt betrayed and cheated, and swore to never pay attention to Michael Moore again (even though they are ardent Bush-haters and selfproclaimed Liberals...or "Progressives" since liberal is now a bad word).

I have one question. Slashdot is "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters". Other than michael and his ad-hoc wing-nut anti-American activism, why are we even looking at this submission? If /. is covering this, they damn well cover MMHA

Check out their links page for plenty of sites by people working to track down inaccuracies in Moore's works and an article about how Ray Bradbury is annoyed that Moore stole the title from his similarly titled book without asking and without returning his calls to Moore.

http://www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com/

I did get to see "The Terminal" http://www.theterminal-themovie.com/ this weekend and I would say that it was an excellent movie. It's a shame that it is getting over-shadowed by other movies.

I used to like moore until he became a self-serving messiah of the wackos....

www.michaelmoorehatesamerica.com

www.moorewatch.com

Back up this statement with facts, Coward. Or better yet: make a movie about it, and distribute worldwide. :-)
>This guy already did.

That's his perfect right. Feel free to produce a rebuttal

This guy is.

He seems to be getting some hate-mail for it, too.

[Christopher] HITCHENS: But speaking here in my capacity as a polished, sophisticated European as well, it seems to me the laugh here is on the polished, sophisticated Europeans. They think Americans are fat, vulgar, greedy, stupid, ambitious and ignorant and so on. And they've taken as their own [Moore], as their representative American someone who actually embodies all of those qualities.

Jean-Luc Godard, the legendary French director who helped to launch the New Wave movement in the 1960s, had harsh words for Moore this week. Godard's latest film, Notre Musique, premiered on Monday, the same day as Fahrenheit 9/11. Later in the week, Godard lashed out at Moore at a press conference, calling him "halfway intelligent." Godard went on to say that the Flint, Mich.-born director lacks subtlety. "Moore doesn't distinguish between text and image," Godard argued. "He doesn't know what he's doing." "Post-war filmmakers gave us the documentary, Rob Reiner gave us the mockumentary and Moore initiated a third genre, the crockumentary."

In two places in Dude, Where's My Country?, Moore implicitly acknowledges mistakes in his earlier works. On several occasions over the past two years, Moore has asserted that (as he put it on "Politically Incorrect") "the Bush Administration gave $43 million in aid to the Taliban in part to -- give money to the poppy growers for the money they would lose because they can't grow heroin anymore." "Bowling for Columbine" continued the canard, asserting that the US gave $245 million in aid to the Taliban government of Afghanistan. Both of these are false; the aid, intended to help relive famine, was given to non-governmental organizations, not the Taliban. In his latest book, Moore finally gets it right, noting that the aid "was to be distributed by international organizations."

[...]

Just how did Moore get so many of his facts wrong? Lazy cribbing from media outlets and the Internet seems the most likely culprit, as evidenced by a four-page list of allegedly dubious policy accomplishments by President Bush, including cutting funds from libraries and appointing former business executives to regulatory posts. All but one of the 48 accusations appear in the same order and with very similar phrasing to a list that has been printed this winter (but before Moore's book came out) on liberal Web sites and, according to Dr. David A. Sprintzen (often wrongly cited, though not by Moore, as its author), was circulating via e-mail last summer. Belying a lack of original research, Moore even apes many of the negative characterizations of individuals, calling judicial appointee Terrence Boyle a "civil rights opponent," for example (the list refers to him as a "foe of civil rights"), with absolutely no context for why exactly Boyle deserves that moniker (one certainly has to wonder whether Moore himself knows). Curiously, Moore cites no source for this list. He only notes that readers "can keep track of what Bush did and does during his administration" by reading Molly Ivins' syndicated column and the Web sites smirkingchimp.com and bushwatch.com. The latter two did print the list, but not until this winter, well after Moore wrote his book, though before it was published.

Michael Moore Is A Big Fat French-Loving Liberal Stooge

Michael Moore Hates America