Well, I'm not lying, so I guess I'm badly misinformed.
I've been informed that at the Clinton-brokered Camp David talks the Israeli government essentially offered the PA everything it ever wanted, including a state of its own, except for the return of the Palestinian "refugees" (which of course would be a death sentence for the state of Israel). Arafat walked away and never even made a counteroffer.
I've been informed that Israel is a liberal democracy. A little too socialist for my tastes, but with well-enshrined traditions of freedom of speech, etc. Its Arab citizens have representatives in Knesset. Meanwhile, Jewish legislators in Arab countries... oh wait, there AREN'T any Jewish legislators in those countries.
I've been informed that there is not a single functioning liberal democracy among the Arab countries, and no indication whatsoever that Palestine, of all places, with its corrupt, thuggish PA, would be any different.
I've been informed that Israel alone has made the desert flower -- that if you take away oil, Israel's economy is more productive than all the Arab countries'. Not individually -- *COMBINED*.
I've been informed -- via a quick Google search -- that the Palestinians enjoy dressing their children up with guns and bombs. Does that sound like a people I'd want anything to do with?
I've been informed that the ISF *encourages* non-violent resistance, but *endorses* violent resistance, rendering the former utterly meaningless. I'm sorry, but I don't remember Ghandi endorsing violence, only condemning it. Contrast: "The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics, both non-violent and violent." (Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Arraf, Palestine Chronicle, January 2002). That is NOT non-violent resistance as the term is generally understood.
I've been informed that if the Palestinians actually tried mass non-violent resistance, instead of paying lip service to it while they blow women and children into piles of hamburger meat with nail-packed explosives, they'd be frickin' running the place by now.
I've been informed that Palestinian leaders will look you in the eye and lie outrageously if they think it will make Israel look bad. This poses a problem for me, since I'm sure Israel *does* do some heinous stuff, but I never know when the alleged victims are lying or not.
I've been informed that, whatever the rights or wrongs, Israel is under a terrorist seige. Israel has a liberal democratic government that must respond to the needs of its citizens. The citizens have demanded that their government protect them from being blown into the aforementioned hamburger meat. Americans would demand the same thing -- so would the residents of any country, even if it meant declaring martial law or suspending some rights.
So do the Palestinians want my sympathy? Easily done, since I'm actually pretty open-minded about the whole thing. Stop murdering women and children. Period. End of discussion. Instead of revering the families of suicide bombers, throw them in prison. Launch a all-out war to crush the militants. Execute Arafat, for embezzlement if nothing else, and all his thugs. Show the world they have grown up and are actually ready to join the family of nations. Begin negotiating for land not only with Israel, but also Syria and Jordan.
2. "You should get free time to attack Moore, without anyone pointing out that others are guilty of the same thing?"
We're not talking about *anyone*. In this case, we're talking about *me*. The question was, why am I criticizing Moore without criticizing everyone who intentionally misleads. Well, I am, in the sense that I'm criticizing those tactics, and by extension, anyone who uses them. But I criticized Moore specifically because *he is the topic of this thread*. I'm simply staying on topic. I'm not saying other people shouldn't criticize Rush, etc. Feel free. It's just a little off-topic in a thread about Michael Moore. His transgressions don't excuse Rush's, and vice versa.
2. "But for all of the news coverage I've seen over the last few months, I have not seen a single person, on either side of the issue call the right out on this issue."
Let me get this straight. You're saying the right doesn't get accused of stretching the truth and distorting things? Look, I'm sorry, but I don't have time to do a comprehensive news analysis for you. All I can tell you is that I have seen many, many, many examples.
3. "Rush Limbaugh has just as big of a soapbox as Moore does, so it's absurd that not only is he getting a free ride, but he's one of the main ones doing the complaining."
I agree that if Rush is as fast and loose with the facts as Moore, it would be absurd for him to complain about it, and he should be criticized for his hypocrisy. On the other hand, Rush IS criticized all the time. Ever hear of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot?" A little book that spent some time on the best-seller lists? Got lots of media coverage? It's absurd to suggest that he has gotten a free ride. The criticism may not have affected his popularity (or it may have, I have no idea), but that's not the same thing as not getting a free ride. People can and do criticize him all the time, I suspect with some justification.
5. "The right constantly screams "tax & spend liberals!", "big government democrats!". Well, if that's the case, how come there were fewer government employees under Clinton then under Bush 1 (I haven't heard any stats for W.)? How come Clinton was able to balance the budget, when Reagan & Bush 1 (& 2 for that matter) set record deficits?
Here you make a number of errors.
a) I'm not certain your statistic about government employees under Clinton is correct.
b) The government budget, and number of government agencies, has grown every year, and continues to grow. There may be very specific, limited counterexamples, but the overall trend is unmistakeable.
c) Clinton appeared balanced the budget because of increased receipts caused by an explosively growing GDP. It had nothing to do with making government smaller. Also, it has often been pointed out that he only balanced the "budget" if you don't count deferred medicare and social security costs, and of course, there's no reason those shouldn't be counted. Businesses, for example, are required by law to account for such future debts.
d) Reagan and Bush did indeed set record deficits. I have no argument with you there. The *current* Republican party is not a party of small government, and I'm not claiming it is, so get your dander back down. I merely pointed out that the trend *began* under Roosevelt, and exploded under Johnson. If you're a liberal, you have nothing to apologize for here: Liberals believe a big government is *good*. I'm simply pointing out one side effect -- that government is *more important and powerful* than it used to be, and thus the electoral stakes are higher.
Thanks. The great Democrat Patrick Daniel Moynihan once wrote that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts.
The funny thing is that you'd think people would have learned after Bowling for Columbine. The author of The Truth About Bowling for Columbine showed that there are a number of places in that movie where Moore indisputably cut and pasted and edited things to leave his audiences with "understandings" that were false. This is a guy with utter contempt for his audience. Imagine the contempt he must feel for his fanboys.
Go to my original post [http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121032&cid=10 192348]. See the little curly marks around the sentence that looks very familiar? Those are quotation marks. The sentence looks familiar because YOU WROTE IT.
I QUOTED YOUR WORDS VERBATIM, and simply noted that the assertion formed by those words was WRONG. You came back and defended some OTHER words -- NOT the ones I quoted. I pointed this out. You responded by talking about parent posts or some other inanity.
And the funny thing is, you're STILL DOING IT!
Quote (that means "stuff you said"):
"Any person directly or indirectly shown or mentioned in the film has 'standing'."
WRONG.
"Any person affiliated with any of the organizations shown or mentioned in the film has 'standing'. "
WRONG
"And since an election is a matter of national interest, any citizen who thinks this film can negatively influence his life or his country probably has standing, too"
RIGHT. Oh wait, my mistake: WRONG AGAIN
The really funny thing about this is that, in less than half the time you just spent blowing smoke, you could have simply Googled to find the American legal definition of standing. I don't want to make it too easy for you, but I'll give you a little hint: It was THE VERY FIRST RESULT FOR THE VERY FIRST SEARCH I TRIED.
In any case, I'm no longer inclined to waste my time with your sophomoric nonsense. But I'm sure the rest of the students will be mighty impressed with your "points of view."
- Alaska Jack
PS Actually, if your "points of view" thesis is correct, perhaps *you* can sue Moore! Simply explain to the court your "point of view" on the legal definition of "standing"! Let me know what they say.
But this is EXACTLY what you're doing. You are not calling out the republicans for doing the same thing you are criticizing Moore for. If you criticize Moore, you also need to criticize those on the right, otherwise you are being as dishonest as he is.
Huh? This thread is about Michael Moore. If you'd like to start some thread about a highly lauded republican who distorts the truth the way he does, be my guest. I'll gleefully join in.
As for politics, the fact is that it's ALWAYS been a dirty game. I don't like it -- in fact, I hate it -- but that's the nature of the game. In fact, I do have a minor dig at the liberals to make here. As I said before, so much is at stake that both sides will do whatever it takes. But here's something to think about: The REASON so much is at stake is because government is so much bigger and more important than it used to be, a trend that really began in the 1940s. And the liberals are the ones who created the modern-day colossus that we call the government.
But again, that doesn't mean the democrats are any more or less dirty than the republicans. As far as I'm concerned, we should just chuck elections altogether and choose our elected officials by random lots.
This is an odd thing for you to say. Not only did I not call Drudge a leftist, I explicitly said that, as far as I can tell, Drudge is a more or less moderate republican. Not that it matters -- you can consider him a martian nazi for all I care.
Similarly, you're welcome to lay in to Rush all you like. I don't watch his show, and feel no compulsion to defend him at all.
The rest of your post is something I hear a lot, and it makes no more sense coming from you than it does anyone else. Politics in this country is a high stakes game, and both sides do whatever it takes to win, all the while accusing the OTHER side of doing whatever it takes to win. The only possible way to arrive at the point of view that you do is to acknowledge all the low-down stuff the other side has done, and try to ignore or overlook all the low-down things your side does.
That doesn't make you unique: Repubs do this all the time too. But to make either party out as some kind of angels is laughable. Look at the democratic political machines that controlled big-city politics in this country for so long. I've got news for you -- they didn't exactly have reputations as paragons of virtue.
Or look at the rarely discussed but probably most important political issue in America today -- Gerrymandering. Both sides gleefully do it, then scream in outrage when the other side does it.
OK, your other post seemed pretty reasonable. On this one you make some egregious mistakes, though.
Let's start with the easy stuff.
"A terrorist is, by definition, someone who has no hope of winning a war."
Really? Fascinating. Whose definition is this? Are you saying terrorist tactics have played no part in winning any historical conflict? More pertinently, are you saying that the members of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc have "no hope" of winning their respective conflicts? (Keep in mind that one does not have to "win" on a battlefield to "win" in an overall conflict.) I suspect that would come as news to them. In fact, I suspect quite strongly that the members in question do indeed have a great deal of hope of "winning" (e.g., bringing about their desired changes).
OK, now on to the broader stuff.
You speak of statistical anomalies, and the invalidity of simply performing word substitutions. In most cases, you are quite correct. But not in this case. In this case, the word substition was a quite pointed way to illuminate the flaws in reasoning in the parent post.
Restated, here's what the parent post said:
A1) You are more likely to be killed on the highway then by a terrorist, and
A2) You are more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.
B) We don't get too worked up about either of those problems, so
C) We shouldn't get so worked up by terrorism.
Surely, a guy like you who understands logic can parse this and see that there are ALL KINDS of problems with this formulation. A premeditated terrorist attack carried out with the deliberate intent of killing as many innocent civilians as possible is NOTHING AT ALL like our highway fatality rate. They are completely different situations. The two situations do not call for the same response. Also, it's a false dilemma: why can't we address both at once? Also, we *do* address highway safety, in many many ways. Also, if more people die of heart disease than die from murders, should we say, "Well, I guess murder's no big deal, so let's not fight crime?" Also... also... well, you're a smart guy, you don't need me to beat this dead horse for you.
Now, my WWII analogy is actually quite apt. We really were attacked, by an enemy who really really would like to defeat us. Simply saying "We're not at war" doesn't make it so. You might believe it, and your friends might believe it, but Osama Bin Laden certainly does not believe it.
To put it one final way: I don't know where you live, but let's assume it's in America, and call it Town X. Now, imagine the situation in 1942. The heart of WWII. Bloody war raging across the pacific, in Europe, everywhere. Fear and slaughter reign across the globe. Now, when the residents of Town X looked out their windows in April 1942, what did they see? Bombs dropping? Explosions? People being machine gunned? Jews being sent to the gas chambers?
No, of course not. They saw trees, and sunlight, and green grass, and butterflies. The same thing you and I see. There were some happy days raising the kids and chatting with the neighbors; and some sad, with highway fatalities and domestic violence. Does all that mean they weren't really at war?
OK, yours was a reasonable post. Let me throw out a couple of points.
1. I'm not an expert on the Rachel Corrie thing, though I am somewhat familiar with it. The Israeli government claimed militants were using tunnels to smuggle people and weapons under the border. This is, in fact, a fact: several such tunnels have been discovered. So was the bulldozing in question an attempt to shut down the tunnels, or an attempt to remove homes that were somehow "inconvenient" to nearby settlers?
I don't know, and neither did Corrie. Like so many isolated incidents over there, it boils down to a he said/she said scenario. It just surprises that you would so immediately believe one side or the other. I mean, remember the Jenin "massacre"? It's not like the Palestinians have any credibility whatsoever.
2. This is a fairly obvious point, but I don't see how the fact that Kopel critizes a dedication in one of Moore's books somehow obliterates the mountain of evidence in 59 Deceits. It would be quite reasonable of you to say that you think Kopel's a jerk for saying that stuff about Corrie, but even a jerk can make credible arguments that deserve to be taken seriously.
3. Kopel didn't lie. It is a fact that Corrie was an activist for a group that advocated the extermination of Israel. I do agree that Kopel's wording is too strong. I would have said something like "Corrie's actions demonstrated a lack of empathy for the victims of terror, a lack of concern for the certain future victims, and a lack of understanding for the difficult position the terror bombings put the government of Israel in." He is a pretty reasonable guy -- perhaps you should e-mail him and suggest he at least soften his wording on that point.
I guess I could elaborate on that a little. First, though, a point about the three pundits you mention: Two of the three are not "right wing." Conservatives don't consider O'Reilly a conservative, and neither does he. He is more of an independent guy with some idiosyncratic views. (This is not to defend him. I've never seen his show, and I've heard he can be a real jerk). Drudge is not a right-winger either. I understand his politics are somewhere around the moderate-republican area. You do know he's gay, right? He's only "right wing" in the sense that he's "not liberal." At least that is my feel for it.
More substantively, if you want to criticize Rush for his opinions, that's fine. And if it can be shown that Rush is as fast and loose with facts as Moore is, then by all means, I think he would deserve every bit of criticism he got. Of course, I've never listened to his show anyway.
I completely understand your point. I just don't know of anyone who actually thinks it is OK for Rush, O'Reilly and Drudge to lie and use half-truths, but not for Moore to do so.
I've always been of the opinion that you should be harshest in demanding a high level of honesty from the people on your side. Some honest liberals have said, essentially: "Michael Moore is a liar, and we don't need his 'help' to show what a terrible president Bush is." I may not agree with their opinion of Bush, but I respect their integrity.
I've been on/. a long time, and I can't remember ever reading any post so smooth, so smug in its condescending evasion of the issues.
This is getting kind of tedious, but let me make a few quick points.
1. Your intellectually inane defense of Moore begs a very basic question. Is it, or is it not, possible to deceive without telling an outright lie? Is it, or is it not, possible to present a impression you know is false by selective omission of facts? Your lengthy discourse suggests (ahh, but never outright claims!) that it is not, that such deceptions are simply a matter of one's "point of view." Is this in fact what you are trying to say?
This matters because it is precisely this that Moore is accused of. As law professor Randy Barnett puts it:
"Notice the film's meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) "true" or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression... Kopel's lawyerly description of Moore's claims shows the film to be a genuinely impressive accomplishment in a perverse sort of way (the way an ingenious crime is impressive)--a case study in how to convert elements that are mainly true into an impression that is entirely false."
For Pete's sake, even the film's *defenders* have noted Moore's tendency to play fast and loose with the facts (see Paul Krugman, for example).
Your relativistic approach -- that the selective ommission of facts is merely one's "point of view" -- is one that would have warmed the hearts of propagandists the world over.
2. One more note, just to point out how disingenuous you are. You say:
"Need me to repeat what I said? Here: anyone who thinks that Moore's "lies" are personally damaging has the right to proceed legally against him (as long as he or she can prove that they are, in fact, lies)"
Yes, but that's NOT what you said in your earlier post, the one to which I was replying. You said, and I (once again) quote verbatim:
"If you ['you' in this case being the author of the parent comment] 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..."
In other words:
1. You say the original poster should sue Moore for lying; 2. You imply (ahh! But never actually SAY!) that the reason no one has sued Moore is because no one can prove Moore is lying. 3. I point out that this is complete bullshit; that the reason people don't sue Moore is not because they can't prove he is being deceptive, but because they lack any standing to sue. 4. Instead of just admitting you were wrong, you go on some rambling tangent trying to deflect attention from the quote I criticized.
Nice try. Re-order your condescending-but-inane ramblings into something resembling an actual argument that addresses the points, and play again.
You know what? You're absolutely right. Not only did I mispell Buddhist, I actually meant Shinto. Good call. Doesn't change my point one iota, of course, but your corrections are appreciated.
Thanks. The world is a cold, inhospitable place for us dumb guys.
2. In your part about lies vs. point of view, you very carefully avoid any mention of Kopel's "Lies in Fahrenheit 911." You also blur the distinction between opinion and fact, which is, not coincidentally, the very thing Moore is criticized for. In fact, that is the main complaint: That Moore is a master at taking half-truths and carefully worded assertions, and putting them together in a way that leaves viewers with misleading insinuations as to the *actual* facts. In other words, that he deliberately gives false impressions without actually lying.
So in terms of outright lies, there's not very much to point to. But that's not to say there's *nothing* to point to -- there certainly is. For example, the letter to the editor in the newspaper, doctored to look like a news article. Or the placque in Bowling for Columbine that doesn't say what he said it did. Or the way he edited Heston's speeches to make it sound like he was saying something he wasn't.
I guess what I just don't understand about the whole thing is that Moore isn't just lying to ME. He's lying to YOU, and all his audience. Go read The Truth About Columbine, and 59 Lies in Fahrenheit 911, then come back and tell me Moore deserves any loyalty from the fans whose intelligence he so obviously despises.
3. The key word in your lengthy discourse about "standing" is "AFAIK." Look, not to be too blunt about this, but the F in that phrase is, well, not very F.
I don't have the time or inclination to give a discourse about the American legal concept of "standing." But Google is your friend, my friend, and through it you might have learned that not just anyone in the U.S. can sue anyone for any reason. Most pertinently, I can't sue Moore just because he lies in his documentaries. I would have to show standing -- i.e., that *I* was tangibly harmed by those lies.
So to bring it back around full circle, you claimed that the fact that no one is suing Moore is evidence that what he says must be true. I'm pointing out that that assertation is simply wrong.
(To anticipate your next argument: Yes, Bush could conceivably claim to be harmed by the lies/distortions, but under American law would almost certainly lose any lawsuit based not on the validity of his claims but on the simple fact that he is a leading political figure.)
Sure, oh erudite one -- if both authors were clearly raving lunatics.
But in this case, I don't think *either* of them are lunatics. Moore is pretty obviously a master propagandist: He believes a little "fudging" of the truth is acceptable in pursuit of what he believes to be proper ends. That doesn't make him a lunatic, though. As for Kopel, frankly, I can't find anything "lunatic" about him or his site at all. He is a respected writer and scholar mainly known for his expertise on second amendment issues.
I mean, I share Kopel's belief that Moore's fudging and misleading are despicable. But surely that alone doesn't qualify us as lunatics?
1. They "lap it up?" I don't understand. I hear constantly about how the Administration has this country whipped up into a patriotic, war-worshipping fever. And yet this same electorate "laps it up" when Bush attacks war veterans? I don't get it.
2. Why is it that Americans (as Karl Rove figured out) "lap up" Bush's bashing of war veterans? What is it about it that appeals to them? And on the other hand, you are obviously not "lapping it up." Why not? How is it that the Bush administration managed to make this veteran-bashing so appealing to everyone else, but not to you? Are you immune to their charm? Or just smarter than most other people?
3. Now, about veteran's benefits. Could you please read this: http://66.216.126.164/lowry/lowry200312180910.asp
and get back to me? I'd be curious to know what you think.
Please show me a few of the posts (you claim "a whole lot of posts," but I'll settle for two or three) that give you the "implication" that "Michael Moore is engaged in unfair shenanigans that the Republicans would never consider themselves."
In particular, the parent post -- the very one you are replying too -- never makes this claim, or anything like it. Why didn't you respond to a post that actually gave you that implication?
Your post seems perfectly reasonable, with a conclusion flowing logically from your premise. Except...
Except that your fundamental premise is wrong.
It's been pointed out a million times, but I guess I'll make it a million and one: The onus was not on the U.S. to prove Saddam had WMDs. The onus was on Saddam Hussein to satisfactorily account for a long list of WMDs his regime had declared following the first Gulf War.
Iraq never even came close to doing this. Instead, they threw all their resources into harassing, obstructing and evading U.N. inspectors, documented in meticulous (and eye-opening) detail in Pollack's "The Threatening Storm."
In retrospect, did we have intelligence problems? Sure. So did everyone else. But that doesn't change the facts that Saddam would still be in power today if he had pulled a South Africa and cooperated with U.N. inspectors.
I've read your post a couple of times, and I'm trying to understand, so please help me. First, are you saying Dave Kopel has been refuted? If so, could you show me where?
Also, you mention Moore's movie has a lot of irrefutable facts. But by that standard, so does Alice in Wonderland. The question is: What about the "other" facts? (Not opinions -- everyone is entitled to their own. But facts are different. If some of Moore's "facts" really aren't, how am I to know which is which?)
Also, I thought one of the complaints about Moore was not that he necessarily made up facts, but that he strings together facts and half-truths in ways that are clearly misleading (like the edited and spliced shots of Charlton Heston's speeches in Bowling for Columbine). Kopel puts forth a pretty damning picture of Moore in that respect. Has this been "refuted" as well?
Either that, or the complete absence of significant Japanese strikes in the US since 12/07 indicated -- not that we were fighting "Japanese imperialism" and winning -- but that *there was no Japanese threat to the United States of America.*
"World War II" was a con used to justify military spending and to restrict our rights. It is precisely the sort of thing Orwell wrote about.
*America was not at war. There was nobody to fight.*
- Alaska Jack
PS I've read all of Orwell's major works and most of his minor. And what I can say is this: people like you *don't understand Orwell.* Orwell didn't believe there was no such thing as war, or that some wars weren't justified, or that every war was just an attempt to "justify military spending and restrict rights." Those are naive simplifications. He would have thought your formulation -- in the context of a country that had *actually been attacked* -- was absurd.
Statistically - Americans in 1941 were far Far FAR more likely to be killed on the highway then by a Japanese soldier.
Statistically - The were more likely to be killed by someone in their own family than by a Japanese soldier.
(neither of those statistics include people killed in foreign countries)
So, there WAS a Japanese threat to the citizens of the USofA. Just not much of one. But that RARITY in itself led the media to cover it completely out of proportion to the likelyhood of it happening again.
Now, was there a Japanese threat to the USofA? No.
Nothing any Japanese soldier could do would EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances would we overthrow our existing government and install a Bhuddist emperor.
On the other hand, we can slip into a authoritarian socialist (see Roosevelt and Co.) or a corporate-based fascist state. But that won't be because Hirohito did anything. That will be because WE voted for it and allowed it.
First, the doctoring of the Pantagraph was not a "copyediting error." Have you seen the movie? There is just no way this was some kind of "unfortunate" mistake. The date was changed AND a frickin' LETTER TO THE EDITOR was changed to look like a news article. The Pantagraph editor himself calls your theory "baloney."
Second: Moore is a media machine. He has a production company with PR people and a vast communications apparatus. But not only has he refused to apologize to the Pantagraph, he has refused to respond to repeated requests to answer one simple question: Why was the newspaper altered?
Your post is the worst kind of apologia. Read Dave Kopel's 59 Lies in Fahrenheit 911, then come back and tell me that Moore deserves your blind loyalty.
Hmmm, I don't know if the tone of your reply really captures what happened.
For one thing, it wasn't a "mistake." That word implies it was some kind of accident or oversight. To the contrary, the doctoring done in to the newspaper in the movie was clearly quite deliberate.
Also, Moore has already had plenty of time to apologize for this. He hasn't done so, and for good reason -- all it would do is generate another round of media coverage about how parts of F911 were deliberately deceptive.
You'll note from the Pantagraphs coverage the part where Moore refuses to answer a very simple question: Why was the newpaper doctored? Well, think about it: Why would Moore refuse to answer that question?
I just want to point out one small error in part of your post.
Bush did not attack Kerry (or McCain, AFAIK) over Vietnam. It is Kerry who, as it has been pointed out time and time again, made his four months of service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. Even during the primary campaign, it was pointed out that he brought up Vietnam constantly, at every single opportunity.
The fact is that the stuff a politician brings up on the campaign trail is fair game for criticism from all interested parties. For his part, Bush has been far more interested in fighting the current war then he has been in going back and arguing over Vietnam.
Here's another way to look at it. Your (mistaken, I believe) perception that Bush attacked Kerry over Vietnam obviously irritated you. That's natural -- it would irritate most Americans. Now: Given that, do you really think it would be wise for Bush to do that? Of course not -- it would be monumentally foolish. Bush is hugely popular in the military, and he didn't get that way be criticizing war veterans for their service.
Another weird post in this long and weird thread. Notice: Nothing in this post justifies Moore's lies, half-truths and misleading evasions. All you do is say "Oh yeah, well, Bush is a jerk!"
You're entitled to your opinion. But this thread is about Michael Moore, and how honest he is. With your post, you basically concede that he is a liar -- you simply justify it by saying Bush is a liar, too. So tell me: Why should I believe anything Moore says?
First, you go on and on insisting that "Documentaries have *always* presented their point of view," and "Some people think the only people allowed to express their point of view are the ones they agree with."
All that is great. Except, as it has been pointed out AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, Moore is not being criticized for *having a point of view.* He is being criticized for the half-truths, misleading evasions and outright lies he uses to *support* his point of view.
Also you say "If you think anything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lie, sue Moore and get rich." Huh? Since you are such an expert that you're not afraid to get up and post in front of thousands of/. readers, perhaps you would care to explain how I would have legal standing in this case. (I am sure, given your expertise, that you're familiar with the basic legal concept of "standing"!)
Slashdot Mirror
Well, I'm not lying, so I guess I'm badly misinformed.
... oh wait, there AREN'T any Jewish legislators in those countries.
I've been informed that at the Clinton-brokered Camp David talks the Israeli government essentially offered the PA everything it ever wanted, including a state of its own, except for the return of the Palestinian "refugees" (which of course would be a death sentence for the state of Israel). Arafat walked away and never even made a counteroffer.
I've been informed that Israel is a liberal democracy. A little too socialist for my tastes, but with well-enshrined traditions of freedom of speech, etc. Its Arab citizens have representatives in Knesset. Meanwhile, Jewish legislators in Arab countries
I've been informed that there is not a single functioning liberal democracy among the Arab countries, and no indication whatsoever that Palestine, of all places, with its corrupt, thuggish PA, would be any different.
I've been informed that Israel alone has made the desert flower -- that if you take away oil, Israel's economy is more productive than all the Arab countries'. Not individually -- *COMBINED*.
I've been informed -- via a quick Google search -- that the Palestinians enjoy dressing their children up with guns and bombs. Does that sound like a people I'd want anything to do with?
I've been informed that the ISF *encourages* non-violent resistance, but *endorses* violent resistance, rendering the former utterly meaningless. I'm sorry, but I don't remember Ghandi endorsing violence, only condemning it. Contrast: "The Palestinian resistance must take on a variety of characteristics, both non-violent and violent." (Adam Shapiro and Huwaida Arraf, Palestine Chronicle, January 2002). That is NOT non-violent resistance as the term is generally understood.
I've been informed that if the Palestinians actually tried mass non-violent resistance, instead of paying lip service to it while they blow women and children into piles of hamburger meat with nail-packed explosives, they'd be frickin' running the place by now.
I've been informed that Palestinian leaders will look you in the eye and lie outrageously if they think it will make Israel look bad. This poses a problem for me, since I'm sure Israel *does* do some heinous stuff, but I never know when the alleged victims are lying or not.
I've been informed that, whatever the rights or wrongs, Israel is under a terrorist seige. Israel has a liberal democratic government that must respond to the needs of its citizens. The citizens have demanded that their government protect them from being blown into the aforementioned hamburger meat. Americans would demand the same thing -- so would the residents of any country, even if it meant declaring martial law or suspending some rights.
So do the Palestinians want my sympathy? Easily done, since I'm actually pretty open-minded about the whole thing. Stop murdering women and children. Period. End of discussion. Instead of revering the families of suicide bombers, throw them in prison. Launch a all-out war to crush the militants. Execute Arafat, for embezzlement if nothing else, and all his thugs. Show the world they have grown up and are actually ready to join the family of nations. Begin negotiating for land not only with Israel, but also Syria and Jordan.
- Alaska Jack
1. OK, first, just relax. I'm not your enemy.
2. "You should get free time to attack Moore, without anyone pointing out that others are guilty of the same thing?"
We're not talking about *anyone*. In this case, we're talking about *me*. The question was, why am I criticizing Moore without criticizing everyone who intentionally misleads. Well, I am, in the sense that I'm criticizing those tactics, and by extension, anyone who uses them. But I criticized Moore specifically because *he is the topic of this thread*. I'm simply staying on topic. I'm not saying other people shouldn't criticize Rush, etc. Feel free. It's just a little off-topic in a thread about Michael Moore. His transgressions don't excuse Rush's, and vice versa.
2. "But for all of the news coverage I've seen over the last few months, I have not seen a single person, on either side of the issue call the right out on this issue."
Let me get this straight. You're saying the right doesn't get accused of stretching the truth and distorting things? Look, I'm sorry, but I don't have time to do a comprehensive news analysis for you. All I can tell you is that I have seen many, many, many examples.
3. "Rush Limbaugh has just as big of a soapbox as Moore does, so it's absurd that not only is he getting a free ride, but he's one of the main ones doing the complaining."
I agree that if Rush is as fast and loose with the facts as Moore, it would be absurd for him to complain about it, and he should be criticized for his hypocrisy. On the other hand, Rush IS criticized all the time. Ever hear of "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot?" A little book that spent some time on the best-seller lists? Got lots of media coverage? It's absurd to suggest that he has gotten a free ride. The criticism may not have affected his popularity (or it may have, I have no idea), but that's not the same thing as not getting a free ride. People can and do criticize him all the time, I suspect with some justification.
5. "The right constantly screams "tax & spend liberals!", "big government democrats!". Well, if that's the case, how come there were fewer government employees under Clinton then under Bush 1 (I haven't heard any stats for W.)? How come Clinton was able to balance the budget, when Reagan & Bush 1 (& 2 for that matter) set record deficits?
Here you make a number of errors.
a) I'm not certain your statistic about government employees under Clinton is correct.
b) The government budget, and number of government agencies, has grown every year, and continues to grow. There may be very specific, limited counterexamples, but the overall trend is unmistakeable.
c) Clinton appeared balanced the budget because of increased receipts caused by an explosively growing GDP. It had nothing to do with making government smaller. Also, it has often been pointed out that he only balanced the "budget" if you don't count deferred medicare and social security costs, and of course, there's no reason those shouldn't be counted. Businesses, for example, are required by law to account for such future debts.
d) Reagan and Bush did indeed set record deficits. I have no argument with you there. The *current* Republican party is not a party of small government, and I'm not claiming it is, so get your dander back down. I merely pointed out that the trend *began* under Roosevelt, and exploded under Johnson. If you're a liberal, you have nothing to apologize for here: Liberals believe
a big government is *good*. I'm simply pointing out one side effect -- that government is *more important and powerful* than it used to be, and thus the electoral stakes are higher.
- Alaska Jack
Thanks. The great Democrat Patrick Daniel Moynihan once wrote that everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but no one is entitled to their own facts.
The funny thing is that you'd think people would have learned after Bowling for Columbine. The author of The Truth About Bowling for Columbine showed that there are a number of places in that movie where Moore indisputably cut and pasted and edited things to leave his audiences with "understandings" that were false. This is a guy with utter contempt for his audience. Imagine the contempt he must feel for his fanboys.
- AJ
Let me guess: You're a college student.
0 192348]. See the little curly marks around the sentence that looks very familiar? Those are quotation marks. The sentence looks familiar because YOU WROTE IT.
Go to my original post [http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=121032&cid=1
I QUOTED YOUR WORDS VERBATIM, and simply noted that the assertion formed by those words was WRONG. You came back and defended some OTHER words -- NOT the ones I quoted. I pointed this out. You responded by talking about parent posts or some other inanity.
And the funny thing is, you're STILL DOING IT!
Quote (that means "stuff you said"):
"Any person directly or indirectly shown or mentioned in the film has 'standing'."
WRONG.
"Any person affiliated with any of the organizations shown or mentioned in the film has 'standing'. "
WRONG
"And since an election is a matter of national interest, any citizen who thinks this film can negatively influence his life or his country probably has standing, too"
RIGHT. Oh wait, my mistake: WRONG AGAIN
The really funny thing about this is that, in less than half the time you just spent blowing smoke, you could have simply Googled to find the American legal definition of standing. I don't want to make it too easy for you, but I'll give you a little hint: It was THE VERY FIRST RESULT FOR THE VERY FIRST SEARCH I TRIED.
In any case, I'm no longer inclined to waste my time with your sophomoric nonsense. But I'm sure the rest of the students will be mighty impressed with your "points of view."
- Alaska Jack
PS Actually, if your "points of view" thesis is correct, perhaps *you* can sue Moore! Simply explain to the court your "point of view" on the legal definition of "standing"! Let me know what they say.
But this is EXACTLY what you're doing. You are not calling out the republicans for doing the same thing you are criticizing Moore for. If you criticize Moore, you also need to criticize those on the right, otherwise you are being as dishonest as he is.
Huh? This thread is about Michael Moore. If you'd like to start some thread about a highly lauded republican who distorts the truth the way he does, be my guest. I'll gleefully join in.
As for politics, the fact is that it's ALWAYS been a dirty game. I don't like it -- in fact, I hate it -- but that's the nature of the game. In fact, I do have a minor dig at the liberals to make here. As I said before, so much is at stake that both sides will do whatever it takes. But here's something to think about: The REASON so much is at stake is because government is so much bigger and more important than it used to be, a trend that really began in the 1940s. And the liberals are the ones who created the modern-day colossus that we call the government.
But again, that doesn't mean the democrats are any more or less dirty than the republicans. As far as I'm concerned, we should just chuck elections altogether and choose our elected officials by random lots.
- Alaska Jack
"but that certainly doesn't make him a leftist"
This is an odd thing for you to say. Not only did I not call Drudge a leftist, I explicitly said that, as far as I can tell, Drudge is a more or less moderate republican. Not that it matters -- you can consider him a martian nazi for all I care.
Similarly, you're welcome to lay in to Rush all you like. I don't watch his show, and feel no compulsion to defend him at all.
The rest of your post is something I hear a lot, and it makes no more sense coming from you than it does anyone else. Politics in this country is a high stakes game, and both sides do whatever it takes to win, all the while accusing the OTHER side of doing whatever it takes to win. The only possible way to arrive at the point of view that you do is to acknowledge all the low-down stuff the other side has done, and try to ignore or overlook all the low-down things your side does.
That doesn't make you unique: Repubs do this all the time too. But to make either party out as some kind of angels is laughable. Look at the democratic political machines that controlled big-city politics in this country for so long. I've got news for you -- they didn't exactly have reputations as paragons of virtue.
Or look at the rarely discussed but probably most important political issue in America today -- Gerrymandering. Both sides gleefully do it, then scream in outrage when the other side does it.
- Alaska Jack
OK, your other post seemed pretty reasonable. On this one you make some egregious mistakes, though.
... also ... well, you're a smart guy, you don't need me to beat this dead horse for you.
Let's start with the easy stuff.
"A terrorist is, by definition, someone who has no hope of winning a war."
Really? Fascinating. Whose definition is this? Are you saying terrorist tactics have played no part in winning any historical conflict? More pertinently, are you saying that the members of Al Qaeda, Hezbollah, etc have "no hope" of winning their respective conflicts? (Keep in mind that one does not have to "win" on a battlefield to "win" in an overall conflict.) I suspect that would come as news to them. In fact, I suspect quite strongly that the members in question do indeed have a great deal of hope of "winning" (e.g., bringing about their desired changes).
OK, now on to the broader stuff.
You speak of statistical anomalies, and the invalidity of simply performing word substitutions. In most cases, you are quite correct. But not in this case. In this case, the word substition was a quite pointed way to illuminate the flaws in reasoning in the parent post.
Restated, here's what the parent post said:
A1) You are more likely to be killed on the highway then by a terrorist, and
A2) You are more likely to be killed by someone in your own family than by a terrorist.
B) We don't get too worked up about either of those problems, so
C) We shouldn't get so worked up by terrorism.
Surely, a guy like you who understands logic can parse this and see that there are ALL KINDS of problems with this formulation. A premeditated terrorist attack carried out with the deliberate intent of killing as many innocent civilians as possible is NOTHING AT ALL like our highway fatality rate. They are completely different situations. The two situations do not call for the same response. Also, it's a false dilemma: why can't we address both at once? Also, we *do* address highway safety, in many many ways. Also, if more people die of heart disease than die from murders, should we say, "Well, I guess murder's no big deal, so let's not fight crime?" Also
Now, my WWII analogy is actually quite apt. We really were attacked, by an enemy who really really would like to defeat us. Simply saying "We're not at war" doesn't make it so. You might believe it, and your friends might believe it, but Osama Bin Laden certainly does not believe it.
To put it one final way: I don't know where you live, but let's assume it's in America, and call it Town X. Now, imagine the situation in 1942. The heart of WWII. Bloody war raging across the pacific, in Europe, everywhere. Fear and slaughter reign across the globe. Now, when the residents of Town X looked out their windows in April 1942, what did they see? Bombs dropping? Explosions? People being machine gunned? Jews being sent to the gas chambers?
No, of course not. They saw trees, and sunlight, and green grass, and butterflies. The same thing you and I see. There were some happy days raising the kids and chatting with the neighbors; and some sad, with highway fatalities and domestic violence. Does all that mean they weren't really at war?
- Alaska Jack
OK, yours was a reasonable post. Let me throw out a couple of points.
1. I'm not an expert on the Rachel Corrie thing, though I am somewhat familiar with it. The Israeli government claimed militants were using tunnels to smuggle people and weapons under the border. This is, in fact, a fact: several such tunnels have been discovered. So was the bulldozing in question an attempt to shut down the tunnels, or an attempt to remove homes that were somehow "inconvenient" to nearby settlers?
I don't know, and neither did Corrie. Like so many isolated incidents over there, it boils down to a he said/she said scenario. It just surprises that you would so immediately believe one side or the other. I mean, remember the Jenin "massacre"? It's not like the Palestinians have any credibility whatsoever.
2. This is a fairly obvious point, but I don't see how the fact that Kopel critizes a dedication in one of Moore's books somehow obliterates the mountain of evidence in 59 Deceits. It would be quite reasonable of you to say that you think Kopel's a jerk for saying that stuff about Corrie, but even a jerk can make credible arguments that deserve to be taken seriously.
3. Kopel didn't lie. It is a fact that Corrie was an activist for a group that advocated the extermination of Israel. I do agree that Kopel's wording is too strong. I would have said something like "Corrie's actions demonstrated a lack of empathy for the victims of terror, a lack of concern for the certain future victims, and a lack of understanding for the difficult position the terror bombings put the government of Israel in." He is a pretty reasonable guy -- perhaps you should e-mail him and suggest he at least soften his wording on that point.
- Alaska Jack
I have a simple answer for you: It's not.
I guess I could elaborate on that a little. First, though, a point about the three pundits you mention: Two of the three are not "right wing." Conservatives don't consider O'Reilly a conservative, and neither does he. He is more of an independent guy with some idiosyncratic views. (This is not to defend him. I've never seen his show, and I've heard he can be a real jerk). Drudge is not a right-winger either. I understand his politics are somewhere around the moderate-republican area. You do know he's gay, right? He's only "right wing" in the sense that he's "not liberal." At least that is my feel for it.
More substantively, if you want to criticize Rush for his opinions, that's fine. And if it can be shown that Rush is as fast and loose with facts as Moore is, then by all means, I think he would deserve every bit of criticism he got. Of course, I've never listened to his show anyway.
I completely understand your point. I just don't know of anyone who actually thinks it is OK for Rush, O'Reilly and Drudge to lie and use half-truths, but not for Moore to do so.
I've always been of the opinion that you should be harshest in demanding a high level of honesty from the people on your side. Some honest liberals have said, essentially: "Michael Moore is a liar, and we don't need his 'help' to show what a terrible president Bush is." I may not agree with their opinion of Bush, but I respect their integrity.
- Alaska Jack
I've been on /. a long time, and I can't remember ever reading any post so smooth, so smug in its condescending evasion of the issues.
... Kopel's lawyerly description of Moore's claims shows the film to be a genuinely impressive accomplishment in a perverse sort of way (the way an ingenious crime is impressive)--a case study in how to convert elements that are mainly true into an impression that is entirely false."
This is getting kind of tedious, but let me make a few quick points.
1. Your intellectually inane defense of Moore begs a very basic question. Is it, or is it not, possible to deceive without telling an outright lie? Is it, or is it not, possible to present a impression you know is false by selective omission of facts? Your lengthy discourse suggests (ahh, but never outright claims!) that it is not, that such deceptions are simply a matter of one's "point of view." Is this in fact what you are trying to say?
This matters because it is precisely this that Moore is accused of. As law professor Randy Barnett puts it:
"Notice the film's meticulousness in saying only (or mostly) "true" or defensible things in support of a completely misleading impression
For Pete's sake, even the film's *defenders* have noted Moore's tendency to play fast and loose with the facts (see Paul Krugman, for example).
Your relativistic approach -- that the selective ommission of facts is merely one's "point of view" -- is one that would have warmed the hearts of propagandists the world over.
2. One more note, just to point out how disingenuous you are. You say:
"Need me to repeat what I said? Here: anyone who thinks that Moore's "lies" are personally damaging has the right to proceed legally against him (as long as he or she can prove that they are, in fact, lies)"
Yes, but that's NOT what you said in your earlier post, the one to which I was replying. You said, and I (once again) quote verbatim:
"If you ['you' in this case being the author of the parent comment] 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..."
In other words:
1. You say the original poster should sue Moore for lying;
2. You imply (ahh! But never actually SAY!) that the reason no one has sued Moore is because no one can prove Moore is lying.
3. I point out that this is complete bullshit; that the reason people don't sue Moore is not because they can't prove he is being deceptive, but because they lack any standing to sue.
4. Instead of just admitting you were wrong, you go on some rambling tangent trying to deflect attention from the quote I criticized.
Nice try. Re-order your condescending-but-inane ramblings into something resembling an actual argument that addresses the points, and play again.
- Alaska Jack
You know what? You're absolutely right. Not only did I mispell Buddhist, I actually meant Shinto. Good call. Doesn't change my point one iota, of course, but your corrections are appreciated.
- Alaska Jack
1. "I respect your incomprehension."
Thanks. The world is a cold, inhospitable place for us dumb guys.
2. In your part about lies vs. point of view, you very carefully avoid any mention of Kopel's "Lies in Fahrenheit 911." You also blur the distinction between opinion and fact, which is, not coincidentally, the very thing Moore is criticized for. In fact, that is the main complaint: That Moore is a master at taking half-truths and carefully worded assertions, and putting them together in a way that leaves viewers with misleading insinuations as to the *actual* facts. In other words, that he deliberately gives false impressions without actually lying.
So in terms of outright lies, there's not very much to point to. But that's not to say there's *nothing* to point to -- there certainly is. For example, the letter to the editor in the newspaper, doctored to look like a news article. Or the placque in Bowling for Columbine that doesn't say what he said it did. Or the way he edited Heston's speeches to make it sound like he was saying something he wasn't.
I guess what I just don't understand about the whole thing is that Moore isn't just lying to ME. He's lying to YOU, and all his audience. Go read The Truth About Columbine, and 59 Lies in Fahrenheit 911, then come back and tell me Moore deserves any loyalty from the fans whose intelligence he so obviously despises.
3. The key word in your lengthy discourse about "standing" is "AFAIK." Look, not to be too blunt about this, but the F in that phrase is, well, not very F.
I don't have the time or inclination to give a discourse about the American legal concept of "standing." But Google is your friend, my friend, and through it you might have learned that not just anyone in the U.S. can sue anyone for any reason. Most pertinently, I can't sue Moore just because he lies in his documentaries. I would have to show standing -- i.e., that *I* was tangibly harmed by those lies.
So to bring it back around full circle, you claimed that the fact that no one is suing Moore is evidence that what he says must be true. I'm pointing out that that assertation is simply wrong.
(To anticipate your next argument: Yes, Bush could conceivably claim to be harmed by the lies/distortions, but under American law would almost certainly lose any lawsuit based not on the validity of his claims but on the simple fact that he is a leading political figure.)
- Alaska Jack
Sure, oh erudite one -- if both authors were clearly raving lunatics.
But in this case, I don't think *either* of them are lunatics. Moore is pretty obviously a master propagandist: He believes a little "fudging" of the truth is acceptable in pursuit of what he believes to be proper ends. That doesn't make him a lunatic, though. As for Kopel, frankly, I can't find anything "lunatic" about him or his site at all. He is a respected writer and scholar mainly known for his expertise on second amendment issues.
I mean, I share Kopel's belief that Moore's fudging and misleading are despicable. But surely that alone doesn't qualify us as lunatics?
Respectfully,
- Alaska Jack
1. They "lap it up?" I don't understand. I hear constantly about how the Administration has this country whipped up into a patriotic, war-worshipping fever. And yet this same electorate "laps it up" when Bush attacks war veterans? I don't get it.
2. Why is it that Americans (as Karl Rove figured out) "lap up" Bush's bashing of war veterans? What is it about it that appeals to them? And on the other hand, you are obviously not "lapping it up." Why not? How is it that the Bush administration managed to make this veteran-bashing so appealing to everyone else, but not to you? Are you immune to their charm? Or just smarter than most other people?
3. Now, about veteran's benefits. Could you please read this: http://66.216.126.164/lowry/lowry200312180910.asp
and get back to me? I'd be curious to know what you think.
- Alaska Jack
Just a simple question.
Please show me a few of the posts (you claim "a whole lot of posts," but I'll settle for two or three) that give you the "implication" that "Michael Moore is engaged in unfair shenanigans that the Republicans would never consider themselves."
In particular, the parent post -- the very one you are replying too -- never makes this claim, or anything like it. Why didn't you respond to a post that actually gave you that implication?
- Alaska Jack
Your post seems perfectly reasonable, with a conclusion flowing logically from your premise. Except ...
Except that your fundamental premise is wrong.
It's been pointed out a million times, but I guess I'll make it a million and one: The onus was not on the U.S. to prove Saddam had WMDs. The onus was on Saddam Hussein to satisfactorily account for a long list of WMDs his regime had declared following the first Gulf War.
Iraq never even came close to doing this. Instead, they threw all their resources into harassing, obstructing and evading U.N. inspectors, documented in meticulous (and eye-opening) detail in Pollack's "The Threatening Storm."
In retrospect, did we have intelligence problems? Sure. So did everyone else. But that doesn't change the facts that Saddam would still be in power today if he had pulled a South Africa and cooperated with U.N. inspectors.
- Alaska Jack
I've read your post a couple of times, and I'm trying to understand, so please help me. First, are you saying Dave Kopel has been refuted? If so, could you show me where?
Also, you mention Moore's movie has a lot of irrefutable facts. But by that standard, so does Alice in Wonderland. The question is: What about the "other" facts? (Not opinions -- everyone is entitled to their own. But facts are different. If some of Moore's "facts" really aren't, how am I to know which is which?)
Also, I thought one of the complaints about Moore was not that he necessarily made up facts, but that he strings together facts and half-truths in ways that are clearly misleading (like the edited and spliced shots of Charlton Heston's speeches in Bowling for Columbine). Kopel puts forth a pretty damning picture of Moore in that respect. Has this been "refuted" as well?
- Alaska Jack
This is insightful? OK, how about this:
There's some irony in quoting from one scientific journal to rebut the statements from another scientific journal.
Whee, irony! Mod me up!
- Alaska Jack
Either that, or the complete absence of significant Japanese strikes in the US since 12/07 indicated -- not that we were fighting "Japanese imperialism" and winning -- but that *there was no Japanese threat to the United States of America.*
"World War II" was a con used to justify military spending and to restrict our rights. It is precisely the sort of thing Orwell wrote about.
*America was not at war. There was nobody to fight.*
- Alaska Jack
PS I've read all of Orwell's major works and most of his minor. And what I can say is this: people like you *don't understand Orwell.* Orwell didn't believe there was no such thing as war, or that some wars weren't justified, or that every war was just an attempt to "justify military spending and restrict rights." Those are naive simplifications. He would have thought your formulation -- in the context of a country that had *actually been attacked* -- was absurd.
Statistically - Americans in 1941 were far Far FAR more likely to be killed on the highway then by a Japanese soldier.
Statistically - The were more likely to be killed by someone in their own family than by a Japanese soldier.
(neither of those statistics include people killed in foreign countries)
So, there WAS a Japanese threat to the citizens of the USofA. Just not much of one. But that RARITY in itself led the media to cover it completely out of proportion to the likelyhood of it happening again.
Now, was there a Japanese threat to the USofA? No.
Nothing any Japanese soldier could do would EVER destroy the USofA. Under no circumstances would we overthrow our existing government and install a Bhuddist emperor.
On the other hand, we can slip into a authoritarian socialist (see Roosevelt and Co.) or a corporate-based fascist state. But that won't be because Hirohito did anything. That will be because WE voted for it and allowed it.
Oh my god this is just so bizarre.
First, the doctoring of the Pantagraph was not a "copyediting error." Have you seen the movie? There is just no way this was some kind of "unfortunate" mistake. The date was changed AND a frickin' LETTER TO THE EDITOR was changed to look like a news article. The Pantagraph editor himself calls your theory "baloney."
Second: Moore is a media machine. He has a production company with PR people and a vast communications apparatus. But not only has he refused to apologize to the Pantagraph, he has refused to respond to repeated requests to answer one simple question: Why was the newspaper altered?
Your post is the worst kind of apologia. Read Dave Kopel's 59 Lies in Fahrenheit 911, then come back and tell me that Moore deserves your blind loyalty.
- Alaska Jack
Hmmm, I don't know if the tone of your reply really captures what happened.
For one thing, it wasn't a "mistake." That word implies it was some kind of accident or oversight. To the contrary, the doctoring done in to the newspaper in the movie was clearly quite deliberate.
Also, Moore has already had plenty of time to apologize for this. He hasn't done so, and for good reason -- all it would do is generate another round of media coverage about how parts of F911 were deliberately deceptive.
You'll note from the Pantagraphs coverage the part where Moore refuses to answer a very simple question: Why was the newpaper doctored? Well, think about it: Why would Moore refuse to answer that question?
- Alaska Jack
I just want to point out one small error in part of your post.
Bush did not attack Kerry (or McCain, AFAIK) over Vietnam. It is Kerry who, as it has been pointed out time and time again, made his four months of service in Vietnam the centerpiece of his campaign. Even during the primary campaign, it was pointed out that he brought up Vietnam constantly, at every single opportunity.
The fact is that the stuff a politician brings up on the campaign trail is fair game for criticism from all interested parties. For his part, Bush has been far more interested in fighting the current war then he has been in going back and arguing over Vietnam.
Here's another way to look at it. Your (mistaken, I believe) perception that Bush attacked Kerry over Vietnam obviously irritated you. That's natural -- it would irritate most Americans. Now: Given that, do you really think it would be wise for Bush to do that? Of course not -- it would be monumentally foolish. Bush is hugely popular in the military, and he didn't get that way be criticizing war veterans for their service.
- Alaska Jack
Another weird post in this long and weird thread. Notice: Nothing in this post justifies Moore's lies, half-truths and misleading evasions. All you do is say "Oh yeah, well, Bush is a jerk!"
You're entitled to your opinion. But this thread is about Michael Moore, and how honest he is. With your post, you basically concede that he is a liar -- you simply justify it by saying Bush is a liar, too. So tell me: Why should I believe anything Moore says?
- Alaska Jack
This post is just weird.
/. readers, perhaps you would care to explain how I would have legal standing in this case. (I am sure, given your expertise, that you're familiar with the basic legal concept of "standing"!)
First, you go on and on insisting that "Documentaries have *always* presented their point of view," and "Some people think the only people allowed to express their point of view are the ones they agree with."
All that is great. Except, as it has been pointed out AGAIN and AGAIN and AGAIN, Moore is not being criticized for *having a point of view.* He is being criticized for the half-truths, misleading evasions and outright lies he uses to *support* his point of view.
Also you say "If you think anything in Fahrenheit 9/11 is a lie, sue Moore and get rich." Huh? Since you are such an expert that you're not afraid to get up and post in front of thousands of
Seriously, please respond. I really want to know.
- Alaska Jack