Michael Moore, Hero or Rogue

Thomas, California has changed tremendously since your visit as a child, but it's still the center of the world's high tech industry, and still a great place to live. My wife will attest to that! LOL She doesn't want to move from this area. We still attract the brightest and best to this valley, and probably have more people with college degrees (bachelors, masters, and PhDs) as a percentage of the population than most places on this planet. The families that live next door to us, both left side and right side, have PhDs. It seems the high tech industry is beginning to hire again; our unemployment rate dropped to below six percent. If you decide to search in this area, I'll be more than happy to show you around Silicon Valley. We're 40 miles from San Francisco and about 7 miles from San Jose.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

I haven't yet decided where to go, but given my background, the likeliest candidates are the Bay Area and Greater Boston. Less likely choices would include Raleigh NC, Dallas TX, Princeton NJ, and Boulder CO. The Bay Area is my favorite for sentimental reasons, but I'm trying to keep an open mind about other places.

You may already be aware of this, but of the various areas under your consideration, the following have very high, by US standards, costs of living:

In order

Bay Area
Boston
Princeton

I'm not familiar with the cost of living in Boulder, but it is beautiful...if you like winter.

Raleigh and Dallas are the most affordable. Austin TX is a tech town too and more enjoyable than Dallas.

If you're wealthy enough to be a German citizen donating to Kerry's campaign, though, you can probably afford any of these places.

Just about every city in America is a great place, except of course Boston. Cool

0 Replies

Quote:

I am just not as selective in my passion as you would like, seeing how I get annoyed when leftists do it too.

Now nimh, how long have we been acquainted? Several years now, I fear. And you believe that I wish for you to be more selective in your passions? Heavens no, dear........please! Enjoy, and I will be delighted. I get as annoyed as you do when anyone behaves in a destructive manner........left or right and I agree that there are all sorts of kooks and literal minded fundamentalists. We have no difference there.

My point is simply this. That the majority of the electorate do not choose a candidate based on rational decision alone. There are many reasons for this, but at it's base I believe the reason is simple human nature. We want to feel like we're doing the right thing. We want what we want. And many people make up their minds based on their gut (feelings.) They vote for the candidate that makes them feel good (safe, vindicated, gratified through hero worship, loved, understood........whatever) If this weren't the case, a candidate would be able to run and win based on his good sense and superior plan for action alone. Most, if not all people, vote for the candidate with the best advertising campaign. (And of course, it doesn't hurt if the candidate can cheat on the vote count as well.)

I don't disagree with anything Moore does in his film. He states the facts, from his prejudiced perspective and invites others to join him. He makes no pretense of objectivity. The Moore's and others, both left and right have their place. My judgement of these types is based, to some degree, on their skill. To win, one side or the other has to outdo in the effort to influence the voters.

Moore's antics may offend you........but I was entertained by them. He asks some hard questions......and it's up to someone to answer his questions and counter with good questions of their own in order to take him on. So far, I haven't seen anyone do this....the best anyone can do is call him "ungrown up." No one has pointed out any factual incorrectness. Isn't there a logical fallacy in here somewhere? (and I do realize that the question is set up this way......and for this reason, I suggest we not take the title too literally.)

As far as his points go........maybe you don't agree with me that his questions are critical.....in that case then..............., we just don't agree on what's important ....

Quote:

Rational and heart aren't mutually exclusive unless "heart" is used as a euphemism for "irrational".

Craven........I agree that rationalilty and heart are not mutually exclusive. One must balance the other or distortions will result. I was commenting on the absence of considerations of the "heart" ...........absence, not mutual exclusivity.

0 Replies

Well, I think nimh's a better example than I of what my point was. There isn't an absence of heart.

On the contrary, many are passionate about this sense of... dunno what to call it other than "intellectual honesty".

Again, using nimh as an example, he demonstrates a lot of it, and has a lot of heart too. Moore may have heart, but is, IMO, sorely lacking in the intellectual honesty department.

0 Replies

Another example of Moore's lies.

Michael Moore wrote:

At the end of the film Bush says "Fool me once, shame on me. I won't get fooled again." Clearly that moment demands that we hear Roger Daltrey scream, "Won't get fooled again!" That's how I had it cut. Pete Townsend blocked it, would not allow the song to be used. Word came to us that he is not a fan of Michael Moore's and in fact supports the war and supports Tony Blair and doesn't want the song used in any way that would make Blair look bad. Harvey personally made an appeal to him to reconsider. And he wouldn't. At that point, we're about a week away from going to Cannes.

Pete Townsend replies:

Pete Townsend wrote:

Michael Moore has been making some claims - mentioning me by name - which I believe distort the truth.

He says - among other things - that I refused to allow him to use my song WON'T GET FOOLED AGAIN in his latest film, because I support the war, and that at the last minute I recanted, but he turned me down. I have never hidden the fact that at the beginning of the war in Iraq I was a supporter. But now, like millions of others, I am less sure we did the right thing.

When first approached I knew nothing about the content of his film FAHRENHEIT 911. My publisher informed me they had already refused the use of my song in principle because MIRAMAX the producers offered well below what the song normally commands for use in a movie. They asked me if I wanted to ask for more money, I told them no.

Nevertheless, as a result of my refusal to consider the use, Harvey Weinstein - a good friend of mine, and my manager Bill Curbishley - interceded personally, explained in more detail to Bill what the movie was about, and offered to raise the bid very substantially indeed. This brought the issue directly to me for the first time. Bill emailed me and told me how keen Harvey and Michael Moore were to use my song.

At this point I emailed Bill (and he may have passed the essence of what I said to Harvey Weinstein) that I had not really been convinced by BOWLING FOR COLUMBINE, and had been worried about its accuracy; it felt to me like a bullying film. Out of courtesy to Harvey I suggested that if he and Moore were determined to have me reconsider, I should at least get a chance to see a copy of the new film. I knew that with Cannes on the horizon, time was running short for them, and this might not be possible. I never received a copy of the film to view. At no time did I ask Moore or Miramax to reconsider anything. Once I had an idea what the film was about I was 90% certain my song was not right for them.

I believe that in the same email to my publisher and manager that contained this request to see the film I pointed out that WGFA is not an unconditionally anti-war song, or a song for or against revolution. It actually questions the heart of democracy: we vote heartily for leaders who we subsequently always seem to find wanting. (WGFA is a song sung by a fictional character from my 1971 script called LIFEHOUSE. The character is someone who is frightened by the slick way in which truth can be twisted by clever politicians and revolutionaries alike). I suggested in the email that they might use something by Neil Young, who I knew had written several songs of a more precise political nature, and is as accessible as I am. Moore himself takes credit for this idea, and I have no idea whether my suggestion reached him, but it was the right thing to do.

I have nothing against Michael Moore personally, and I know Roger Daltrey is a friend and fan of his, but I greatly resent being bullied and slurred by him in interviews just because he didn't get what he wanted from me. It seems to me that this aspect of his nature is not unlike that of the powerful and wilful man at the centre of his new documentary. I wish him all the best with the movie, which I know is popular, and which I still haven't seen. But he'll have to work very, very hard to convince me that a man with a camera is going to change the world more effectively than a man with a guitar.

Pete

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

If you decide to search in this area, I'll be more than happy to show you around Silicon Valley.

Thanks a lot for your kind offer. I may well take you up on it sometime in the next 12 months!

Finn d'Abuzz wrote:

Just about every city in America is a great place, except of course Boston.

Thanks for the information! I'm aware that the places I'm most likely to go are horribly expensive, but I'm also told they're worth it. (including Boston, which my little sister is an extreme partisan of. She'll tear you apart if she catches you messing with Boston! Wink

)

0 Replies

Boston is a wonderful city. Compared to Dallas it's paradise. If you offered me Hell and Dallas, I'd sell Dallas.

So, Roger Daltry may be a liar. Who in the Hell cares? The film stand alone with or without the potshots taken at what is now a phenomena that can't be ignored whether one has seen it or not or likes it or not.

0 Replies

I don't know if what Moore has done with Townsend is actually lying, but it is a perfect example of how he spins and twists the truth to satisfiy his own agenda: the continued revolution of the world around Michael Moore.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

So, Roger Daltry may be a liar. Who in the Hell cares? The film stand alone with or without the potshots taken at what is now a phenomena that can't be ignored whether one has seen it or not or likes it or not.

After so much evidence demonstrating what a liar Moore is, you continue to hold on to your idolotry of Moore, yet the mere suggestion that Bush MAY have mislead you and he is evil incarnate... I just don't get it.

0 Replies

Craven wrote:

Quote:

Again, using nimh as an example, he demonstrates a lot of it, and has a lot of heart too. Moore may have heart, but is, IMO, sorely lacking in the intellectual honesty department.

I agree with you, Craven that nimh has a lot of heart. I didn't suggest that he didn't. My point was that he and Thomas seem to believe that an election can be won by a candidate's mature behavior alone. Rationality is great........I love it. But this election or any other will never be won by the demonstration of a candidate's intellectual honesty alone. For one thing, it's much too subjective a judgement. And for another, many people, I'd guess a large majority of the electorate don't make decisions based on rational thought alone. They will settle for, indeed they prefer........demand to be sold, persuaded. We all like to feel good about our decisions. And here I'm emphasizing the word "feel" which is what I meant when I used the word "heart." Perhaps it was a poor chose of words to describe my meaning.

(I am reading Charles Dickens' Hard Times. And it was this distinction I was thinking of......)

While I agree that nimh has heart and is intellectually honest, I wouldn't agree that he's more so than many of the rest of us. Again it's a highly subjective term. Just because Moore is successful in getting his point across doesn't mean he's intellectually dishonest. His facts were correct. He is trying to persuade and persuade he does. And, IMO the world may eventually owe him a great debt. This is indeed the most important election for many decades. Bush has to go. I'm grateful to Moore for his artistic and persuasive presentation.

0 Replies

Thomas, Most of my days are flexible, except I'll be crusing Antarctica in January 2005 for 18 days. PM me any time.

0 Replies

The "evidence" if examined closely can be characterized as just as dishonest or more as the claims that Moore is dishonest. It's all in the viewpoint and it's all opinion. They don't bother to provide any emperical evidence -- they'd lose in court or in a debate. There are other rock stars who laud Moore's efforts. Again, so what? I suppose going to the theater and actually seeing the film to make one's own judgement is too much to ask. Nevermind, Sony has purchased the rights for the DVD in a few months and it's also going to be on Pay-Per-View and Showtime. If one who despises Moore doesn't bother to see it, that's also not important. Continuing to state that I "idolize" Moore is just as lot of mindless prattle.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

[But this election or any other will never be won by the demonstration of a candidate's intellectual honesty alone.

You can say the same thing about the converse. It will not be won by intellectual dishonesty alone.

Quote:

Just because Moore is successful in getting his point across doesn't mean he's intellectually dishonest.

Correct, it's not "just" because he's "successful in getting his point across" but rather because he uses intellectually dishonest methods for doing so.

So, were he to be able to get his point across without the intellectual dishonesty he would not be intellectually dishonest.

Simply put, the complaints about his intellectual dishonesty have precious little to do with his "success" or that he's "getting his point accross".

Quote:

He is trying to persuade and persuade he does. And, IMO the world may eventually owe him a great debt.

Um, ok...

I mean, I hope he can help get rid of Bush and all but I think this is waxing a wee bit... silly....

Then again, fanhood tends to be silly. My opinions on Michael Jordan make as little sense.

Anywho, I gotta get working so I can pay back Michael Moore. ;-)

0 Replies

Did Moore loan you money, Crave? I guess he is a foolish man.

I can see where you feel Moore is being "intellectually dishonest" in that he often plays on emotional strings and that can make one uncomfortable. I didn't interpret those scenes you question in quite the same way but I definitely see how one could have a different interpretation.

I repeat -- Moore doesn't expect that all his opinions are right and has said so in many interviews.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Did Moore loan you money, Crave?

Nah, but Lola said we'd owe him a bunch.

Quote:

I guess he is a foolish man.

'twouldn't be follish, I'm pretty ethical about money and always pay people back ASAP.

Quote:

I can see where you feel Moore is being "intellectually dishonest" in that he often plays on emotional strings and that can make one uncomfortable.

That wouldn't be intellectual dishonesty IMO.

Quote:

I repeat -- Moore doesn't expect that all his opinions are right and has said so in many interviews.

If he did say so I'd have little qualm with it, the charge for intellectual dishonesty is not about what his opinion of his opinions is but rather the way he constructs arguments. Lot's of cheap shots with the first victim being intellectual honesty.

I fault him because he can make more powerful arguments by going for a cheap (and often prevaricating) argument less often.

0 Replies

jpinM, Welcome to A2K. You certainly did "jump in." Wink

0 Replies

Excellent start JPiM!

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

My point was that he and Thomas seem to believe that an election can be won by a candidate's mature behavior alone. Rationality is great........I love it. But this election or any other will never be won by the demonstration of a candidate's intellectual honesty alone.

Actually, part of my argument is that I'm convinced that rabble-rousing populist cheapshots that dont take the truth too literally will, if anything, lose you the election. They might be fine to fire up one's hardcore supporters at a political rally, but theyre gonna chase away many of the undecideds you wanna be winning over.

Lola wrote:

Just because Moore is successful in getting his point across doesn't mean he's intellectually dishonest. His facts were correct.

That is exactly whats being contended here. I still havent seen the film yet (not released here yet), but already seen many greatly detailed arguments about individual things that Moore's purported "facts" were not correct on - and his own blogging in defence against these allegations (yes, LW, I've read it, even summarized some of it here) as often as not doesn't convince much - if it addresses all of 'em at all.

I dont think ANYONE here said Moore is intellectually dishonest "just because he's successful" - that's just a rhetorical straw man thingie. Plenty of people have gone into some detail about how, when and on what scores Moore showed himself to be intellectually dishonest. Its Moore's defenders who want to bring his success into the argument - as if his box office success somehow "proves" that he didnt deceive or mislead.

Lola wrote:

He is trying to persuade and persuade he does.

That is still very much an open question. How many people has Moore "persuaded"? Or is he merely confirming people who go see his movies in opinions they already had - and quite plausibly, turning people who didn't already have those opinions further off?

0 Replies

Quote:

Actually, part of my argument is that I'm convinced that rabble-rousing populist cheapshots that dont take the truth too literally will, if anything, lose you the election.

nimh,

If this were true, then we'd also have to agree that Limbaugh, Coulter and Fox News are not/have not been assets to the conservative/contemporary Republican party. If you believe that's true as well, then we'll just have to wait until time tells. Until then, we apparently will have to disagree about it.

Many of the sited "intellectually dishonest" segments or points in Michael Moore's movie are all, IMO, points of reasonable contention. There is nothing Moore claimed in his movie that does not have some basis in fact. Many of Richard Mullenix's points are based entirely on his own subjective opinion about the reading of certain events and his evaluation of their meaning. His peice is another example of an attempt to influence, as is Moore's movie. We're talking perspective. Anyway, Moore isn't trying to win the prize for most intellectually honest.......he's trying to influence. He thinks he's helping his cause. I do too. But that's based at least in part of my subjective experience about what influences me. How like you and how many like me there are remains to be seen. You're turned off by his tactics, but that's you. Me, I'm laughing all the way to the ballot box.

These discussions sometimes revolve around issues like how many angels can sit on the head of a pin. I think it would serve us all well if we acknowledged that the way we see a given situation is based on many personal and complicated factors and our ability to know whether Moore is helping or hurting his cause is highly limited at best. We all have our opinions....but I'll be fully prepared to admit that mine have been wrong in the event they seem to be proven to be so. That seems very grown up of me, don't you agree? Laughing

The American electorate is made up of a highly diverse number of types of people. No one technique is effective with all. Moore's movie is a gamble, as is everything we try, but it's a highly educated gamble. We'll see if it pays off or not.

The statistics from the CNN poll about the numbers of people who intend to see the movie were very impressive to me. I haven't been able to find the report on the internet, but it was reported on Wednesday or so on CNN. Something like 45 percent of people who plan to vote have seen or plan to see the movie before the election.

I saw the movie twice. Once at 8pm on a Sunday night and again at 8:45 pm on a Monday of the second week of it's release in Dallas. I saw it at a theater in Plano, Texas (wealthy suburb of Dallas and the center of conservative Republican types) The movie was showing on three screens (and it was showing all over town on multiple screens as well). Both times I saw it, the theater was full. (I've been to other controversial/progressive films in this same theater and the audience has been extremely small.) The audience members were sober and involved in serious consideration of the film in the discussions I overheard as the movie let out. Nationally, the movie made more in the first week end than did Bowling for Columbine in it's entire run.

The movie will be influential. And none of us knows how many people there are out there ripe enough to be influenced in the way Moore wants them to be. But we do know that many people are still not happy with Bush about his election tricks in 2000. Remember that the country was divided. Moore doesn't have to tip very far in the progressive direction to realize a major impact. And folks are growing restless about the war in Iraq. The ground is fertile. And we shall see.

0 Replies

Michael Moore, Hero or Rogue

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know