Micheal Moore (1 Viewer)

[Shawn]

As a documentarian, Michael Moore relies on anecdotes and self-selected data

That's true of every single documentary ever made, every news story ever assembled, etc.

That's a completely meaningless statement.

The rest of that post is pretty weak too. I think you know it, so I'm going to pass on by this thread.

 

[St. PJ]

I've spent a lot of time abroad, particularly in Scandinavia. People are healthy and generally happy and do not wish to change their universal health care system. They selected it democratically and they continually elect to keep it.

Doctors are allowed to give private service on the side if people are willing to pay. The system works well as evidenced in the mortality and health statistics of the people it serves.

The one complaint they have, the one trade off, is that for elective surgery -- cosmetic procedures or non-life threatening issues -- they have to get in a line and wait for months to get it.

I personally have seem my own family subjected to a lot of medical quackery and I've seen people ruined by medical bills and struggle to maintain insurance for their family.

When your system costs the most and objective medical statistics on life expectancy and general health says you are ranked 42nd in the world, then something is wrong. Is it a complete coincidence that all the countries that have universal health care surpass the United States and rank near the top?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/08/12/AR2007081200113.html

Universal health care can work. It does work for lots of other people. But it is in doubt whether we are capable of making work because the will to do so is not there on the part of important vested interests.

That's the essential element of the debate, IMO, not that "the system is inefficient and in and of itself can't work." The system does work for people who want to make it work.

This is what I wanted when I started this thread. Concerning propaganda, our government and the corporations and institutions that fund it are more guilty of a more dangerous propaganda concerning the citizens of the United States of America. It is much akin to convincing the christians that the Devil does not exist. Is it unpatriotic to say our system is flawed, and that no, we aren't as free or soveirgn as we believe? Our healthcare is but one of many things we believe to be superior and the best. The system works for insurance companies and those who profit off of healthcare. Sometimes it meets our needs too; but it can be more effective, and as a nation are we willing to hold our representatives accountable and point to other systems that are better? Or will we just believe the propaganda against them without investigating becuase surely the politicians funded by those who profit would not lie to us?

 

[philipkw]

Some are put off by MM’s effrontery and don’t seem able to discern the difference between criticisms of US policy and criticisms of the US as a whole. The US was founded on an idea, a grand experiment of self-governance, and thinking people should welcome criticism of the government when it appears that politicians are failing at executing the ideas articulated by the Founders. Sadly, I suspect that many who subscribe to the notion that America, as engineered by the pols in power, can do no wrong would malign Jefferson were he walking among us.

It’s no big secret that the guy is a liberal and his films presented through the lens of his personal bias so it’s incumbent upon his audience to view the documentaries with skepticism. But biased criticism doesn’t necessarily invalidate the facts that are presented. Even Fox news is right some times.

Certainly the ideas/criticisms from MM and others should be scrutinized with the vigor evident in his questioning of authority. Going to the library for fact checking seems like a great idea. It’s certainly more constructive that knee-jerk dismissal or silly flag-draped accusations of communist sympathies.

As for being cynical, I think that’s mostly healthy. But as in everything moderation is key. There’s often a fine line between cynicism and seeing conspiracies behind everything.

 

[TDH]

Politicians won't do anything because we're too busy arguing with each other. They're just a reflection of us. Blaming the "government" for all the problems is really blaming each other.

 

[St. PJ]

Politicians won't do anything because we're too busy arguing with each other. They're just a reflection of us. Blaming the "government" for all the problems is really blaming each other.

I really, truly believe this is the point, the goal of our government. Why else would we put a war on tv or polarize every issue down to paper or plastic? While we are busy taking sides and pointing fingers at one or the other, our minds being focused on whatever political anyalyist or candidates are arguing over, laws are being passed under our noses that are selling our soviergniety out from underneath us. Its a classic misdirection or dog and pony show. Let us waste time on the hundreds of issues that are made political platforms, let us focus our outrage on whichever politician is exposed for misconduct in his personal life, and while we are doing so, we are missing what is happening in the legislature. And when we can get our opinions from TV, talk radio, and the internet, when we can choose what to believe or oppose like we can choose toothpaste and religion, we really have no clue what the lawmakers are doing.

The constitution was great, the founders even left the ability in it to evolve and change if it was not perfect. The tradgedy of it is that is has changed, but in ways that contradict the spirit this nation was founded. While we believe things are nation vs nation, were #1 and yada yada yada, the elite rich who control this country and world are doing it unseen. Laws and line bills are being passed that are selling away our freedoms right under our nose and we are too busy arguing republican vs democrat or pro life vs pro choice or whatever tickles our fancy.

It is said that the laws are so complex; the language is so cryptic to you or I that we really don't know what is occuring. While we systematically remove God from everything, dumb down our education system, and give our attention to what we believe are the issues, We are diverting our attention from our legislature, what they do, and who they really serve-- the elite rich, specifically the top 1/2% of American Houshold Income holders. We sell a war, then we sell a truce. The biggest problems, the ones who PROFIT off of war, gas prices, privatized healthcare, ect, are the ones who go unnoticed and that is exactly how it is designed to be. We have been conditioned to think a certain way, and reading what I just wrote will set off red flags for many who will then think I am some nut and give no credit to any of the above. That is how it is designed. We are but sheep. I guess that makes me a baaaaadd boy.

 

[Webmeistro]

I've spent a lot of time abroad, particularly in Scandinavia. People are healthy and generally happy and do not wish to change their universal health care system. They selected it democratically and they continually elect to keep it.

This is a very poor example. You can't simply say that because it works in Scandinavia, it would work here. Scandinavia is a densely populated area with a homogeneous population. They don't have the same laws regarding equal treatment that they do here either.

In the US, EVERYONE would have to have the same level of treatment under Scandinavia's brand of universal health coverage. That means that we'd have to fund full clinics in remote areas and underfund clinics where people actually need treatment. That simply ain't gonna fly.

What works better for the US population is a single payer system. Get rid of the medical insurance companies who are there to make a profit off of our health and dump us when we get too sick. Everybody gets their medical expenses covered, but nothing changes in regards to private medical practices.

 

[TDH]

What works better for the US population is a single payer system. Get rid of the medical insurance companies who are there to make a profit off of our health and dump us when we get too sick. Everybody gets their medical expenses covered, but nothing changes in regards to private medical practices.

This is not a bad idea. If somebody have to get rich, I'd rather it be doctors or hospitals before insurance companies. Cut out the middle man.

 

[TheBigEasy99]

I did watch the Charleston Heston interview. He basically caught Heston being racists, and Heston realized this and did not want to admit to it or stick his foot in his mouth. There was No evidence of Heston's "Alzheimers" during the interview, or during the NRA rallies he called directly after children were shot and killed by accident in towns like Flynt.

And that right there is the problem with Michael Moore. He doesn't necessarily LIE in his documentaries, but he presents information and footage in such a way that any intelligent person watching would logically jump to a conclusion that is untrue.

To use what you have just stated as an example, anyone who has watched “Bowling for Columbine” assumes that immediately following the tragedy at Columbine High in Littleton, Heston and the NRA immediately traveled to Colorado to hold a pro-gun rally. You would believe that because that is the way Moore presents it (without actually saying it).

The truth of the matter is that the NRA was scheduled to hold their annual meeting in Denver years before the shootings at Columbine ever took place. Because of laws requiring that nonprofits give advance notice to change a meeting place, the NRA had to continue with the meeting. Citing the Columbine tragedy, the NRA cancelled all events apart from the ones that legally had to be held (namely the annual members voting meeting).

Moore goes on in the “documentary” to splice in footage of Heston delivering his infamous “cold, dead hands” spiel, despite the fact that that particular speech was given at another event, a year later, in another state. The viewer now has no choice other than to believe that a) the NRA called a pro-gun rally specifically because of what happened at Columbine and b) that Heston showed no compassion or respect for the memory of those whose lives were lost. Moore never SAYS these things of course, but he presents the information in a way that that is what the viewer will believe.

This type of filmmaking is BY NO MEANS an isolated incident; in fact it is pretty much the basis for his filmmaking style. His films are littered with these types of instances, and whenever he his confronted about them, he falls back on the “I never said that” excuse.

When it’s all said and done, Michael Moore is no different than Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or any other rightwing mouthpiece. Moore has a bias and an agenda and he will provide you with the information that he wants you to see, the way he wants you to see it, in order to make you believe what he wants you to believe.

 

[SoonerJim]

And that right there is the problem with Michael Moore. He doesn't necessarily LIE in his documentaries, but he presents information and footage in such a way that any intelligent person watching would logically jump to a conclusion that is untrue.

To use what you have just stated as an example, anyone who has watched “Bowling for Columbine” assumes that immediately following the tragedy at Columbine High in Littleton, Heston and the NRA immediately traveled to Colorado to hold a pro-gun rally. You would believe that because that is the way Moore presents it (without actually saying it).

The truth of the matter is that the NRA was scheduled to hold their annual meeting in Denver years before the shootings at Columbine ever took place. Because of laws requiring that nonprofits give advance notice to change a meeting place, the NRA had to continue with the meeting. Citing the Columbine tragedy, the NRA cancelled all events apart from the ones that legally had to be held (namely the annual members voting meeting).

Moore goes on in the “documentary” to splice in footage of Heston delivering his infamous “cold, dead hands” spiel, despite the fact that that particular speech was given at another event, a year later, in another state. The viewer now has no choice other than to believe that a) the NRA called a pro-gun rally specifically because of what happened at Columbine and b) that Heston showed no compassion or respect for the memory of those whose lives were lost. Moore never SAYS these things of course, but he presents the information in a way that that is what the viewer will believe.

This type of filmmaking is BY NO MEANS an isolated incident; in fact it is pretty much the basis for his filmmaking style. His films are littered with these types of instances, and whenever he his confronted about them, he falls back on the “I never said that” excuse.

When it’s all said and done, Michael Moore is no different than Rush Limbaugh, Ann Coulter or any other rightwing mouthpiece. Moore has a bias and an agenda and he will provide you with the information that he wants you to see, the way he wants you to see it, in order to make you believe what he wants you to believe.

Thanks, I didn't have time to supply details. In the matter of Charlton Heston, he announced his Alzheimer's in late 2002, and the filming for "Bowling for Columbine" was done in 2001. That's sufficient overlap to suggest mental compromise at the time of the interview. He appears befuddled at the rat-a-tat questioning by Moore. The girl victim was being reared in a crackhouse, a fact left out in the film.

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,40342-1,00.html

Moore's greatest contribution to this country lay in his 2000 advocacy for Ralph Nader, saying there was no difference between Bush and gore. Nader received 30,000 Florida votes, 1000 of which would have comfortably overturned Bush's margin of victory.

I've have seen every one of Moore's TV programs "TV Nation" and "The Awful Truth", and every movie except "Canadian Bacon". No problem has been illuminated or solved through his efforts; indeed, Democrats pushing gun control in 2004 lost heavily. Obama and Clinton seek to regulate much, but are silent on guns. They want to win.

Moore advocates no particular system shown in "Sicko", but wants the dialogue on alternatives opened. The two-tier system used in France earns "The Nation"' endorsement, but Obama and Clinton desiremore measured proposals. Clinton wants mandatory health coverage, and Obama wants universal coverage for all below 25.

I will add to my "Sicko" comment the fact that Moore solicited medical horror stories on his website, and culled the 10,000 to about seven. This, to counter a post above, is documentary by anecdote. The only mysterious element of the movie was the lifestyle enjoyed by the Indian physician in Great Britain. National Service physicians are paid meagerly, so I am confused. The rest is selected happiness, bought and paid for by a 50-65% marginal tax rate.

Moore wrote and directed Fahrenheit 9/11 expressly to deny Bush the 2004 election. It failed. The point by point criticisms are legion and are readily availbale by searching.

"Roger and Me" is the most successful of his films, as it alone possesses a humorous touch found in the TV programs nevermore to be witnessed. The economic slide of Flint, MI, continued apace, unaffected by anything Moore did. It is not an ambitious movie, and succeeds as pointed satire. I would like more of that Moore.

 

[Saintman2884]

Sooner, another problem I have with MM that pj touched on is how he approaches these topics in a self righteous know it all manner that has any intelligent person who can see through the charade ****** off. Bottom line MM is not a documentation, he is a film maker who is peddling a product with an agenda. When I think of good film makers, I think of people like DA Bennibaker, and The man who made Woodstock. Those men did it right and are true to the spirit of good film making. Moore does not do that for me. He might as well as just say he is slanted and appealing to the lowest common denominator. He gets controversy by saying he is above the people he criticizes but he acts just like them. I mean he is the person in many ways he is going and railing against in his "movies" His defenders make excuses for him but they never answer the legitimate accusations people give to him? They give rhetorical BS answers that make no sense and its silly to the extent to which he deliberately exacerbates the problem. He is as much of the problem then he claims to be part of the solution. Thats my position and I am sticking to it. People on this board can call me a right winger, cover up for him, make excuses for him, but I can see what he is and how he peddles his crap to the movie theaters. He is as bad as Rush, Hannity, Coutler and other ilks of the world who do the same thing he does and claim to be so self righteous

 

[BourgeoisBob]

I bet Moore emits more greenhouse gases in one day than 10 trans-continental flights.

 

[St. PJ]

Sooner Jim, I agree that the Roger and Me was Moore at his best. I really did not like the Big One, but I did like the Awful Truth, and I did like the statistics he threw up in Bowling for Columbine and the arguments he had against the usual suspects in the question "why are we so violent or our children". I believe he was on to something with the news trying to scare the crap out of you, then cut to commercial-- buy this, then back to the news and getting cancer from eating oranges. I believe we are conditioned by FEAR, just like Y2K or red alert or whatever. I was shocked the first time I saw canadian news, and bowling for columbine was not the first. I did agree with everything he brought up in Farenheit 911, only becuase I read the book that became the documentary, and in the book he cited where he got every peice of the information and I was able to check it, becuase again I don't like how he presented his evidence or argument, but I also felt Bush and Co. were a lot more arrogant and dishonest concerning the news they give to us. I like that fact that in Sicko, he wasn't blaming anyone, but just urging us to see that their is a better way. It seems he may be learning his lesson.

 

[SaintJ]

You're about four years late, pjgaryjr.

The subject of $Moore$ and his pandering for money got beaten to death on this board a long, long time ago.

Wait.

No link to an unimpeachable source?

 

[saintned]

Perception is reality. Which reality we believe comes down to which one we choose to believe. Our motive behind these choices is what defines our character. i for one would hate to be followed around by a guy with a camera all day!

 

[DadsDream]

Wait.

No link to an unimpeachable source?

You've got access to the SR.com archives. Go look up the threads yourself.