OT- Homeland Security and Michael Moore - Farenheit 9/11

[Parcour25]

Please read this brief NYT article by David Brooks and remark whether you think Michael Moore is a _____________ or an _________________ .


All Hail Moore

By DAVID BROOKS Published: June 26, 2004

Moore, Michael - Politics and Government


In years past, American liberals have had to settle for intellectual and moral leadership from the likes of John Dewey, Reinhold Niebuhr and Martin Luther King Jr. But now, a grander beacon has appeared on the mountaintop, and from sea to shining sea, tens of thousands have joined in the adulation.

So it is worth taking a moment to study the metaphysics of Michael Moore. For Moore is not only a filmmaker; he is a man of ideas, and his work is based on an actual worldview.

Like Hemingway, Moore does his boldest thinking while abroad. For example, it was during an interview with the British paper The Mirror that Moore unfurled what is perhaps the central insight of his oeuvre, that Americans are kind of crappy.

"They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet . . . in thrall to conniving, thieving smug [pieces of the human anatomy]," Moore intoned. "We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don't know about anything that's happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing."

It transpires that Europeans are quite excited to hear this supple description of the American mind. And Moore has been kind enough to crisscross the continent, speaking to packed lecture halls, explicating the general vapidity and crassness of his countrymen. "That's why we're smiling all the time," he told a rapturous throng in Munich. "You can see us coming down the street. You know, `Hey! Hi! How's it going?' We've got that big [expletive] grin on our face all the time because our brains aren't loaded down."

Naturally, the people from the continent that brought us Descartes, Kant and Goethe are fascinated by these insights. Moore's books have sold faster there than at home. No American intellectual is taken so seriously in Europe, save perhaps the great Chomsky.

Before a delighted Cambridge crowd, Moore reflected on the tragedy of human existence: "You're stuck with being connected to this country of mine, which is known for bringing sadness and misery to places around the globe." In Liverpool, he paused to contemplate the epicenters of evil in the modern world: "It's all part of the same ball of wax, right? The oil companies, Israel, Halliburton."

In the days after Sept. 11, while others were disoriented, Moore was able to see clearly: "We, the United States of America, are culpable in committing so many acts of terror and bloodshed that we had better get a clue about the culture of violence in which we have been active participants."

This leads to Michael Moore's global plan of action. "Don't be like us," he told a crowd in Berlin. "You've got to stand up, right? You've got to be brave."

In an open letter to the German people in Die Zeit, Moore asked, "Should such an ignorant people lead the world?" Then he began to reflect on things economic. His central insight here is that the American economy, like its people, is pretty crappy, too: "Don't go the American way when it comes to economics, jobs and services for the poor and immigrants. It is the wrong way."

In an interview with a Japanese newspaper, Moore helped citizens of that country understand why the United States went to war in Iraq: "The motivation for war is simple. The U.S. government started the war with Iraq in order to make it easy for U.S. corporations to do business in other countries. They intend to use cheap labor in those countries, which will make Americans rich."

But venality doesn't come up when he writes about those who are killing Americans in Iraq: "The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not `insurgents' or `terrorists' or `The Enemy.' They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow — and they will win." Until then, few social observers had made the connection between Abu Musab al-Zarqawi and Paul Revere.

So we have our Sartre. And the liberal grandees Arthur Schlesinger, Ted Sorenson, Tom Harkin and Barbara Boxer flock to his openings. In Washington, a Senate vote was delayed because so many Democrats wanted to see his movie.

The standards of socially acceptable liberal opinion have shifted. We're a long way from John Dewey.

Perhaps inspired by Moore, I got a fact wrong in my previous column. Bill Clinton did not win the evangelical vote in 1992 and 1996. I had relied on a report that was later corrected.

[IDAwHOa]

I guess I am too stupid to answer to this issue.

Or am I too smart to become engaged...... :roll:

[vomitbunny]

Shouldn't this in some way be put in some form of a poll? It's got that.....poll feeling to it........almost like you can smell a poll coming....
top...ten........uh.........bowling.....nine.....uh..........
little help here....

[jkrazy52]

Sounds like this would be more suitable on the 'political' thread. My personal take, using the article cited -- If Mr. Moore finds Americans so incredibly stupid and holds us personally responsible for all of the woes of the world, he should pack up and never visit the shores of this nation again. It's a terrible shame when someone can make a fortune simply by uttering nonsense and generalities. America-bashing is a popular sport, in-country and out. America is still one of the few places that allows such remarks without punishing (or silencing) the 'basher'. Too bad the people making the loudest 'noises' don't appreciate the country that gives them such freedoms.

Proud to be an American!
~Judy

[Walden]

America is still one of the few places that allows such remarks without punishing (or silencing) the 'basher'.

You're wrong on this... in almost any country you're quite free to do all the "America-bashing" you desire.

[BoneQuint]

I'm not a Mike Moore fan, although I think he makes some good points hidden in his ranting. But this article uses the same techniques Moore does -- an extreme one-sided point of view hammered on to the point of absurdity. I find it hard to take either seriously.

[blackhawk]

Take it to the political thread.

[glauber]

Definitely a ___________. No doubt about it.

See also this other important thread:
http://chiffboard.mati.ca/viewtopic.php?t=20553

[andreaz54]

I can't comment on Michaels Moore's views. My reason is that I did not hear them come out of his own mouth directly. There is so much crap going on when it comes to the media. I mean, this article has been written by a man and it contains his own personal interpretation of Mr. Moore's remarks. Did Moore really say any of this stuff? Did he say it exactly as quoted? Or has the author sorted of "doctored them up" to suit his own political agenda?? I know this sounds cynical..but I live in a family which contains one family member who is great at twisting up the comments of others in order to suit her own means. It really has served the purpose of waking me up.....don't alway believe what you read or even hear second hand...unless you hear it right from the original source.

Is Mr Moore a grand basher of the US?? Perhaps. But I'll wait to judge him until I hear him directly. Seeing his movie would not hurt either.

Yeah, we really should move this over to the Political Thread.......I think its gonna take off.........

[dubhlinn]

Beg to differ Glauber, Moore is clearly a ___________

Slan,
D.

[Rando7]

I can't comment on Michaels Moore's views. My reason is that I did not hear them come out of his own mouth directly. There is so much crap going on when it comes to the media.

Of course, Mr. Moore is part of the media himself, and should be looked at with the same skepticism. It should be pretty easy to track down the direct quotes through Google if you feel he may have been taken out of context.

Ideally I should see his movie before commenting on it, but I really don't want to enrich the guy any further, so I'll have to rely on reviews until I figure out a way to see it without benefitting him. I don't care much for Moore, I think his "interviewing" methods are rude and manipulative going back well before Fahrenheit 9/11.

[blackhawk]

Our anti-Bush, anti-republican San Jose newpaper movie reviewer had this to say yesterday about Moore and Fahrenheit:



Posted on Fri, Jun. 25, 2004


Sub-par propaganda

AFTER GUN-ISSUE TRIUMPH OF `COLUMBINE,' MOORE MISFIRES IN BROADSIDE ATTACK ON BUSH

By Glenn Lovell

Mercury News


Obviously all that lovely ``Bowling for Columbine'' green has gone to Michael Moore's head. How else to explain ``Fahrenheit 9/11,'' a film so sloppy, illogical and formulaic that it begs the questions: Can a hatchet job actually elicit sympathy for its sitting-duck target? Can it cause, if not a change of heart, at least feelings of regret over missed opportunities to inflict real damage?

Though a huge fan of ``Bowling,'' Moore's powerful plea for gun control, I found this all-out assault on Bush and his response to the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11 to be so smug in its position, so cavalier in its documentation, that I left feeling more hoodwinked than enlightened.

Moore's charge that Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and British Prime Minister Tony Blair -- whose faces are superimposed over the hard-riding Cartwrights of ``Bonanza'' -- used the attacks as a justification to invade Iraq is incendiary but it's hardly revelatory. Nor are Moore's charges of conflict of interest and shameful exploitation of the poor to fight a war that's really about oil, arms contracts and personal revenge.

What is new is the fervor with which Moore launches his preemptive counterattack. In his rush to portray Bush as both con artist and boob, he leaves no conspiracy theory unaired, no cheap shot untaken. The cumulative picture is that of a menace to peace and democracy who can't think on his feet.

Moore opens with the ``stolen election'' of 2000, once again connecting the dots between the contested Florida vote, brother/Gov. Jeb Bush and Republican appointees to the Supreme Court.

He segues to Bush's first days in office. The new president is depicted as bone lazy, unprepared for and finally paralyzed by the events of Sept. 11. During a visit to a Florida classroom, he is told about one plane, then another. He purses and nibbles his lips as a digital clock in the corner of the screen ticks off the seconds, then minutes between when he is alerted and when he reacts.

Cheap shot? Regardless of whether you voted against the man, it certainly feels that way. Might Bush simply have delayed running from the room to keep from panicking the kids?

It'll make you squirm

There's a lot more here that's guaranteed to make you squirm, as much over what it says about Moore as for what it says about Bush. From the president seemingly frozen in fear, Moore moves on to possible collusion as he recounts how Saudis and members of Osama bin Laden's family -- some of whom had business dealings with George Senior -- were flown out of the country.

To pound home what he sees as outrageously lax police work, Moore throws in a lengthy insert from TV's ``Dragnet,'' with Jack Webb (a right-wing propagandist if ever there was one) gathering ``Just the facts, ma'am.''

To come is a slew of accusations about illegal-sounding arms contracts, George Senior's ``private'' trips to Saudi Arabia and the civil-liberties-busting Patriot Act. Again, the material comes at us so fast and is so hastily ``substantiated'' that the first term that leaps to mind isn't ``exposé'' but ``necktie party.''

How will ``Fahrenheit 9/11'' (which takes its title from the Ray Bradbury classic about book-burning) fare at the box office? Given all the advance hype, it should do better than ``Bowling,'' which took in $21 million (or $10 million less than ``DodgeBall'' got just on its opening weekend).

But will it attract many who are not predisposed to its message? Unlikely. Bush lovers won't want to line their sworn enemy's pockets. Meanwhile, Bush-bashers will just swap chummy punches in the arm and ``I told you so'' winks.

What of those discerning students of great (read: more balanced) documentaries, from ``Harlan County, USA'' to ``Fog of War''? This group should be as offended by this crock-doc as they are shocked. They'll praise Moore's discreet handling of the terrorist attacks (screams against a blank screen) but grimace as he resorts to the ambush tactics that served him so much better in ``Columbine.''

Absurd gambit

Here, playing recruiter, he approaches members of Congress with pamphlets and asks them to volunteer their own children to serve in Iraq. The politicians run from the camera -- at least, those politicians who made the final cut. Any who may have seen through the absurdity of Moore's gambit and responded, ``Sure, I'll share this with my kids. They're old enough to make up their own minds about these things,'' is nowhere to be found.

Moore's parting shot is of a hopelessly flummoxed Bush trying to recall an adage that begins ``Fool me once, shame on you. . . .'' The footage is meant as further proof of what a buffoon our current president is. It boomerangs, and makes America's most famous documentarian look facile and petty, and unworthy of a most worthy opponent.

[ChrisLaughlin]

For a collection of all major reviews of F9/11 (with summaries) check out Rottentomatoes here: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/Fahrenheit911-1133649/

To see how F9/11 is doing in the box-office (currently #1) check out Box Office Mojo here: http://boxofficemojo.com/daily/chart/?s ... -25&p=.htm

[Dale]

I don't want to be too tight about this, but I'm really liking the fact that most of the political stuff is staying on that thread. So, I'm going to lock this one and invite you to take it up on the Political thread. I know this disrupts continuity, but I think we have all benefited from the concentration of political discussions on that single thread.


Thanks for understanding. (With apologies to those who don't).


Dale