| Author |
 Topic  |
|
Whippersnapper. 
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
 Posted - 06/30/2007 : 03:16:52
|
Well, people go to the cinema to be entertained far more than they go to be informed.
Moore is a polemicist - he is quite comfortable presenting one side of the case in a way that a courtroom lawyer might. Anyone who thinks he is trying but failing to present a balanced argument is rather missing the point.
You can - all too easily - get the other side of the argument elsewhere. The American gun lobby - which nearly everyone else in the world realises is crazy - is incredibly vocal and powerful. Bush's government machinery presents the Cheney view of the war on terror. Poweful lobbies exist in the States in favour of keeping medicine as private as possible - there is a lot of money in it.
Against these forces Moore has developed a technique of presenting a one-sided opposing argument in a way which will be heard by a large cinema audience.
Although I can't say I find this entirely satisfying, its an information war and war is not a pretty business. Overall I think Moore's work is an important contribution to raising important issues which his audience might well otherwise not have considered at all.
|
 |
|
|
Sean 
"Necrosphenisciform anthropophagist."
|
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 05:48:41
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
Anyone who thinks he is trying but failing to present a balanced argument is rather missing the point.
That's certainly not me. It's crystal clear that he's not trying to be balanced. E.g., the "families of Congressmen are under-represented in Iraq" issue from Fahrenheit 9/11 (I mentioned in an earlier post). His intent was clearly to created a delusional belief in the viewers' minds. That makes him deceitful, which is only a tiny step away from being a liar. I don't like liars or deceivers, whatever their politics, hence I don't like Moore.quote:
......
Against these forces Moore has developed a technique of presenting a one-sided opposing argument in a way which will be heard by a large cinema audience.
Yep, I agree. I'm glad that someone had the balls to be booed off stage during the early stages of the Iraq war when questioning it's correctness was seen as treasonous. And I'm glad someone is attacking the deceit emanating from the White House. I just wish Moore had more respect for the truth. Attacking deceit is righteous, and I don't believe anyone gains when deceit is attacked with even more deceit. Bush et al put themselves in a position where attacking their deceit with the truth would have been so damned easy. I don't believe more deceit from Moore was beneficial to anyone. In fact if he'd stuck to the truth, then Fahrenhype 9/11 probably would never have been made.
Another consequence of embellishing a sound argument with innuendo and emotional manipulation is the loss of some of the 'faithful' when they realise they've been manipulated and deceived.
So to sum up:- I wish Moore would continue doing exactly what he's doing, but stick to the truth, and leave the deceit for those he attacks.
|
Edited by - Sean on 06/30/2007 07:15:19 |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 06:13:41
|
I think the messenger on this issue doesn't carry much weight - or should I say too much weight. No doubt there are elements of the US heathcare system that are broken (not the whole thing mind you, I have a good corporate job - have always had and have always been well cared for) - but Moore seems to say that everyone is entitled to A+ coverage regardless of how well they prepare for their own coverage (if they can) or take care of themselves. Should we raise our taxes so that Mr. Moore can eat whatever he wants, eschew excercise and expect everyone else to pick up the tab? I don't mind universal coverage, but it has to include penalties for personal beahvioral choices.
Althoughan entertaining filmaker, clever, and visionary - he's no vision of health. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie 
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 06:34:30
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
...Moore seems to say that everyone is entitled to A+ coverage regardless of how well they prepare for their own coverage (if they can) or take care of themselves. Should we raise our taxes so that Mr. Moore can eat whatever he wants, eschew excercise and expect everyone else to pick up the tab? I don't mind universal coverage, but it has to include penalties for personal beahvioral choices.
Everyone should be entitled to A+ coverage, not just those that some people think are deserving. It's not simply a matter of being well prepared. There are scores of people who have worked in jobs where health care was a provided benefit and through no fault of their own have lost it. Factories shut down, institutions close, businesses fail. Suddenly a person is in an untenable position regarding health care and have no avenue in which to turn. Again, I know. I had terrific health care for 15 years. Things change, the economy goes sour and suddenly you're in the position of having no insurance when it's the most imperative. It's easy to pick on Moore's obvious inattention to his health, but that's not the reality for everyone who would benefit by national health care. Try being truly disabled and waiting to be approved for SSD with no benefits to support the health care you need, no coverage for extravagantly overpriced medications, and struggling to pay the rent in the meanwhile, while you try to keep your eyes from bleeding so much that you can't see. |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 06/30/2007 : 17:20:18
|
My point is people should try to take care of themselves so that when the government does need to apply the safety net its for those that truly need it. As I said I like the idea of universal health care, but or those people who have access to private healthcare, they should in fact use it. Then the government can focus on those who don't have the choice. I don't want my current care options to go away - it would be like outlawing private schools - chocie is best, and if you have no choice you go to the government option, but it doesn't need to be as good as the private one for which you are paying more money.
And if you choose to eat nothing but doughnuts that shouldn't be my problem - Michael Moore is now rich enough to eat well, if he chooses not to, I shouldn't have to bear that burden. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea 
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 02:46:01
|
| I just want to sum up my position: Michael Moore is not a journalist, he's an artist, and as an artist, he should be faithful not to the truth but to Truth. The higher, artistic stuff. |
|
|
|
turrell
"Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh Ohhhh "
|
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 05:53:29
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I just want to sum up my position: Michael Moore is not a journalist, he's an artist, and as an artist, he should be faithful not to the truth but to Truth. The higher, artistic stuff.
Well said but then he should state that its art and not reality. |
|
|
|
ChocolateLady
"500 Chocolate Delights"
|
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 05:55:45
|
quote:
Originally posted by MisterBadIdea
I just want to sum up my position: Michael Moore is not a journalist, he's an artist, and as an artist, he should be faithful not to the truth but to Truth. The higher, artistic stuff.
I disagree. I think he is a critic, who happens to use film as his way of putting his opinions across. In that light, he does an excellent job - his films are seen and therefore his opinions are expressed to the widest audience he can find. You don't have to agree with his opinions to see that he is successful at what he does. You don't even have to agree with how he researches is movies, since his materials and the way he presents them are directed to support exactly what he wants his audience to see, and hopefully come to the same conclusions that he has come to.
|
|
|
|
Downtown 
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 07/02/2007 : 15:54:38
|
quote:
Originally posted by turrell
My point is people should try to take care of themselves so that when the government does need to apply the safety net its for those that truly need it.
I doubt many people would disagree with you, including those that are currently in the safety net. Was this just a statement of your position in an abstract sense, or were you implying that far too few people are "trying to take care of themselves?"
quote:
And if you choose to eat nothing but doughnuts that shouldn't be my problem - Michael Moore is now rich enough to eat well, if he chooses not to, I shouldn't have to bear that burden.
I fail to see how your own perceptions of the personal health and hygene practices of a filmmaker have anything to do with a serious discussion about healthcare in the United States. |
|
|
|
MisterBadIdea
"PLZ GET MILK, KTHXBYE"
|
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 16:02:53
|
quote:
I disagree. I think he is a critic
I think critics are artists. |
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 16:45:47
|
I think what Moore really shows us is how much the USA is a country controlled by interest groups.
The three big issues his films have dealt with - gun control, "War On Terror" and health insurance - are all issues where corporate America presents the American position as certain and just plain right, whereas much of the rest of the world sees it as just plain barmy. Really, very few people in Europe would support any of America's positions on these issues, but the beneficiaries of the policies are corporations who are clearly displeased at Moore's opposition. Given the forces alligned against him its not that surprising that he does not always play by Marquis of Queensbury rules.
Although I agree with Downtown that Moore's eating habits are not exactly central to the great debate, his no doubt considerable tax contributions to the US Treasury should more than cover his medical bills. 
|
|
|
|
duh 
"catpurrs"
|
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 17:21:06
|
quote:
Originally posted by Whippersnapper
I think what Moore really shows us is how much the USA is a country controlled by interest groups.
That is simply part of the human condition. Think of 'interest groups' as biological organisms that are competing for resources.
|
|
|
|
Whippersnapper.
"A fourword thinking guy."
|
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 18:19:39
|
True, but the corporate interest groups in the States are more powerful than here in the UK, although I don't mean to sound too complacent about it. You may have heard about the British Aerospace bribery scandal, which was conveniently dropped by the British government through "insufficient prospect of bringing a successful prosecution" I think they said, although the chief investigator didn't think so as he hadn't finished investigating. I have heard that the matter is now being taken up in the US, no doubt to increase the chances of US companies getting future arms contracts instead of British Aerospace.
The basis of the British Aerospace deal seems to have been that the Saudis were overcharged for their planes, and kickbacks "consultancy fees" paid to Saudi princes. Although the main beneficiaries were the corrupt pro-Western Saudi royal family, albeit at the expense of their people, the deal started in the Thatcher years and, somewhat mysteriously, her son Mark, who had previously shown no talent whatsover except for being an idiot, suddenly became an arms dealer and made many millions of pounds in commission selling arms to... wait for it... the Saudis. Only a sceptic would suggest this was anything more than a co-incidence. Shortly thereafter Mark's genius for making money dissipated, he returned to being an idiot and, amongst other things, left the States under a cloud following racketeering charges, was thrown out of South Africa for trying to arrange a coup in Equatorial Guinea and has subsequently been quietly thrown out of Monaco as an undesirable. Even his sister describes Mark as "Not my kind of person". 
For a fuller examination of the hilarious career of Mark Thatcher.
Nevertheless, we get the impression that politicians in the States are more easily bought, not least because they are personally funded rather than in the UK where they are funded through their parties.
|
|
|
|
Downtown
"Welcome back, Billy Buck"
|
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 19:25:11
|
| Sounds like my kind of person. |
|
|
|
w22dheartlivie
"Kitty Lover"
|
Posted - 07/03/2007 : 19:56:56
|
| Personally, I'm bowing out of this thread because I am about to lose my infamous temper!! |
|
|
|
Topic |
|
The Truth About Michael Moore
