Michael Moore, Hero or Rogue

If we are so bought by the Saudis and they own so much of America because of our fear of them pulling out their investments then how do you reconcile this with the fact that they did, in fact, pull out their investments en masse?

Cycloptichorn wrote:
It would make sense to me that the Saudis had invested that much in America. All the money they get for oil funnels right back out of the country to foriegn markets, and we've sure given them a lot of it.


Actually it just makes sense as a place to make money, no need to find a more convoluted nonsensical explanation.

What Finn is not acknowledging is that the U.S. represents itself in a false purety, the policians in particular. I am not saying that anyone on this forum actually believes it.

blatham wrote:

The one point Craven made that I do agree with is the prospect of some future polemics coming out of the right and moving into theatres near all of us. That's an ugly prospect, because it means theatres will go the way that radio has gone, and to some extent, the rest of the news media.

craven wrote:

Well, I knew I could at least count on you to find it ugly if the other side does it, if not when yours does.

blatham wrote:

Side, shmide. "The Murder of Vince Foster" penned by Ann Coulter and Carl Rove ain't gonna be a Michael Moore work. And it seems likely you are going to be a while before you twig on the differences.

Jesus Craven, you sure have your panties in a bunch.

I was merely pointing out that 800 billion dollars represents 6% of our total GNP, which is 11 trillion. I didn't say I wanted to argue his case for him.

Quote:

If we are so bought by the Saudis and they own so much of America because of our fear of them pulling out their investments then how do you reconcile this with the fact that they did, in fact, pull out their investments en masse?

I didn't make that argument.

THis is not a convoluted nonsencial explanation. I merely stated that it wouldn't surprise me if the Saudis had invested 800 billion here. Note that I said foriegn markets, not AMERICAN markets, in my quote.

You are so spoiling for someone to argue this issue with you that you are completely making up my side of the argument, and then presenting it as if I said it. Get a grip and quit being a jerk, your posts are normally quite good...

There are logical contradictions in here which need to be explained. The AEI documents from 92 go some distance to establishing why the administration took out Iraq, but not why the Sauds are somehow untouchable.

So the valid news issue here is purposeful deceit leading to war, a somewhat serious endeavor, what with the burned babies and all.

The second news issue sits above in the 'why?' question. Why are the Saudis untouchable?

I doubt very much you'd make the claim that such factors are NOT present in this case of Iraq/Saudi Arabia. How much do they influence? Who do they influence?

As I tried to point out above, there are very good reasons to associate Bush and terrorism...he talks about it all the time....

Moore is saying "Look, the standard justifications and rationales that this administration advances for what they are doing in the Middle East just don't make sense. They only make sense if you add in these other big money factors"...and on that, he is absolutely fukking right.

Side, shmide. "The Murder of Vince Foster" penned by Ann Coulter and Carl Rove ain't gonna be a Michael Moore work. And it seems likely you are going to be a while before you twig on the differences.

You indict me here and elsewhere for either misperceiving from bias or for an unbalanced treatment of arguments or arguers out of my personal biases. Let me return the compliment and indict you for too much satisfaction with the feeling of the fence picket up your bum.

Why might someone as knowledgeable and as careful with claims as Krugman suggest that democracy is presently at risk?

The man is no paranoid, he's wise and alarmed. There is not much I find more frustrating here (if understandable) than the axiomatic principle that if someone claims the sky IS falling, then that claim is SO improbable that the listener (for intellectual efficiency and to avoid future embarrassment) ought to proced immediately to full rejection of the claim. Hell, it can't happen HERE.

My present area of study involves trying to understand who actually has power within this administration and within the new Republican party, and what it is they are doing...how have they managed to gain the control of the party to the extent they have, to what degree they have managed to control or manipulate modern media, the particular tricks they use (eg the Lunz memo ) and what the principals actually have said and what they believe, and the likely policy outcomes.

It's a complex picture, with a number of discernible groups each pushing their own ideas, but tightly (even tyrannically) held together for the perceived gain of all. They are playing to win and there's not much they won't do gain permanent control (explicitly stated goal). They are very smart, very effective, and they understand 'democracy' to mean something quite different from what you think that word ought to mean.

It is no longer a matter of Robert's Rules of Discourse Etiquette. We are going to lose if we don't hit back in the manner that Moore is attempting here. I agree that we must first of all be careful about facts, and use innuendo only where we are pretty damn sure that we point to something relevant and important that needs to be clarified. I am unhappy that this battle needs to be engaged in this manner, but I've concluded, with Krugman and many others, that it does.

For anyone who might have doubts about some of the things I'm saying here, I urge you to pick up Nina J Easton's "The Gang of Five" on five central figures in the new conservative movement. I'll quote Wall Street Journal editor Paul Gigot's comment on this book...
"The rise of the political Right caught most journalists by surprise because they didn't take conservatives seriously. Nina Easton is a rare reporter who does. She almost never agrees with her five prominent profile subjects, but her illuminating book shows what they believe, why they beleiveit, and how they are succeeding."

It don't find it, at all, objectionable when you lament the possibility of right wing polemics following on the heels of left wing polemics. The prospect of Moore continuing his career is an ugly one to me.

What I do take issue with is your insistence that left wing polemics (and Moore's in particular) are somehow less polemical that those of the right wing (and Coulter's in particular).
I do not claim Moore has been less 'polemical' than Coulter. But I do claim that the nature or quality of their polemics are differentiatable and important. And that those differences might be measured in fallacies per column inch, general meanness of spirit, and probably some other criteria that would become evident if one were to, for example, take three pages from either person's latest book and analyze them. Which is an exercise I'd be happy to engage in about seven days.

As for your analysis of the film (which I have now resigned myself to seeing): Moore is saying "Look, the standard justifications and rationales that this administration advances for what they are doing in the Middle East just don't make sense. They only make sense if you add in these other big money factors"
You may be right, I'll return to it after I see the film, but having seen his work before and listening to and reading his interviews, I'm quite inclined to believe that Moore intended to make ominous connections (even if he doesn't believe them himself) between Bush and the Saudis that transcend
family oil deals.
No, I do not think that so at all, but I have not read any of Moore's books. I'm familiar with his documentaries and some ten episodes of his two TV shows. I understand his targets to be social inequalities and injustices, 'unfettered' capitalism, government by the few for the few, and cultural mythologies which facilitate the above.