Michael Moore, on his Big Fat Oscar Night

Political Discourse
Larry, here is what I think about this Michael Moore speech. I would agree that in a rational world all political discourse would be held on an elevated level where all speakers did their utmost to tell the truth. The facts and the ideas could be laid our in rational fashion, and it would be easier for everyone to understand what was being said.

One of my beliefs about political discourse is that most of it by far is not rational at all. Many of us hold our beliefs not because we have made an intense study of the issues and philosophies involved, but for other reasons. This is why so many of us are totally incapable of listening to what others are saying, and can only repeat over and over what it is that appeals to our particular psychological make-up. This is why political discourse is so frustrating.

If Michael Moore has any value to the liberal cause it is that he might inflame some of those dormant irrational liberals who have been too lazy to vote in recent years. What few really rational liberals there are, are here on A2K carrying on peaceful, rational conversation.

I applaud MM for speaking up at the Oscars. The rest of them were too worried, I suppose, that they'd be labeled as unpatriotic, and their movies would be boycotted. It would be nice if he'd stick to the truth. It may not be too much to ask, but it's more than we are going to get. So, even though it's good to call for truth telling, I wouldn't lose a lot of sleep because I don't get the truth all the time. Them's the simple facts'o the matter.

Hazlitt, I usually like what you say, but now you aren't making too much sense. Moore is good BECAUSE he is irrational? And will "wake up other dormant irrational liberals?" What illogic. From irrationality will only come MORE (or Moore) irrationality. Either a political figure ennobles his cause or he degrades it. Moore degrades every cause he takes up because he is using them all for ego promotion.

Larry - is there a reason you need to behave in this manner? People who do not agree with you, or who post things you do not agree with are not necessarily 'not making sense'. Stating that their views are nonsense is beyond the pale.

Have you ever considered that your opinions are opinions - no more and no less.

I've tried to defend you in the past, but I'm giving up.

I'd considered sending this message to you in a P.M., but I decided I'd rather state my opinion in public this time.

In my opinion, Hazlitt makes a great deal of sense in his/her post.

The reason people fight for a cause is either because they believe in it, they want money, or for fame. Moore ain't a rich man. Frankly I wouldn't care if the guy was an egotist, just so long as the views of his I support get the attention they need.

I think he believes in his causes, and getting the lime light every now and then is fair payment for fortifying them.

(I have the vid clip of him receiving his award - anyone know how i can upload it here?)

Quote from article by Eleanor Clift.

"The real test for Bush will come on the economy. Now that he no longer has the war as an excuse, will he own the economy the way he did Saddam? Or will he use his high ratings on national-security issues to deflect concerns about the economy. The way Republicans landed on Democrat John Kerry for advocating "regime change" in 2004 suggests a GOP strategy that defines patriotism as nobody can criticize Bush while we're at war. Kerry stood his ground, a sign that Democrats will fight at home with the tenacity of those young soldiers and Marines fighting in Iraq."

One can't give a reasonable responses to unreasonable accusations.
The GOP did not hesitate to impugn the partriotism of war victim, Purple Heart medal recipient, John Kerry. It does not deserve a reasonable response. It deserves "Listen, you lily- livered, draft dodging, chicken hawks. How dare you impugn the patriotism of a war hero?"

I hope Eleanor Clift is right that the democrats will fight at home with the tenacity of the soldiers in Iraq. "Fighting" means "fighting."

Hazelitt,
...Clap...............clap.........clap, clap,clap,clap,(standing)clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,clap,........ that was eloquent, and right on point.

Beth, there is nothing insulting about my reply to Hazlitt. I began it by saying that I usually agree with him! Calm down, honey.

Dafdaf, just for your information, Michael Moore lives in a $2 million co-op apartment in Manhattan. He is making a fortune from his books and his films and living accordingly.

I would reiterate what I said in earlier post about Moore...he is not a truth teller nor is he an intellectual. He does not speak for me. I prefer the INFORMED commentaries of Noam Chomsky, Edward Said on the Middle East, or Gore Vidal on anything to Moore's faux populism. As I said before, Michael Moore is the Rush Limbaugh of the Left.

A local movie critic reviewed COLUMBINE by saying that it was "provocative, but then again so is someone pissing on your shoe." Exactly right.

Appreciate those who don't rely on the movie critics to support their argument.

My Irrational Reply


Larry old buddy, I am not surprised that you find that I make no sense. In fact, Mrs. Hazlitt has been hinting along those lines for years.

I used a lot of words to say something pretty simple: First, human beings are frequently irrational in their thinking and in their actions. Second, politics is one area of human endeavor where human irrationality is constantly on display (except in exceptional periods).

When you say that Michael Moore is the Rush Limbaugh of the Liberals, you have said exactly what I was trying to say, except that you said it better. Republican party muckty-mucks have constantly given Limbaugh credit for bringing in votes. I am saying that a guy like Moore reaches Liberals who correspond to the KIND of Conservatives that Limbaugh reaches and energizes.

Moore's unique value is that he is reaching people who don't even know who Noam Chompsky is. They'd rather watch a hockey game or a sit com than listen to Chompsky, and wouldn't know what he was talking about if they did listen.

Although Moore may be the despair of those of us who value rational discourse, or at least think we value rational discourse, or hope we do, he is part of the picture, and I think, a valid part, maybe a necessary part.

Hazlitt:

I appreciate your self-deprecating humor. But it seems to me that liberals don't need Michael Moore to be persuaded that gun violence and globalization are bad. Nor do they need to be moved to vote their convictions. Please remember that Al Gore WON the 2000 Presidential election if popular votes mean anything and so we can safely assume that a (bare) majority of Americans already agree with Moore AND ARE VOTING THAT WAY. It is true that the GOP won the 2002 midterm elections, but the real story of that victory was how razor-thin the Republican Senate victories were in every contested race, from Georgia to Minnesota. Liberals vote now, hazlitt, they don't need Moore.

Hazlitt:

Further evidence that liberals can mobilize is the fact that Clinton won the Presidency twice.

I finally saw Bowling for Columbine yesterday and I believe it should be shown by college writing teachers at the beginning of expository writing classes. Excellent.

Have some thoughts based partially on the movie and partially on a question that has been in the air among friends of mine for several years -- Why do Americans not make coming of age films? -- and partially on my reading of Annis Pratt's book on Archetypal feminist criticism (particularly the chapter on the bildunsroman).

I think because America is a conservative nation, we don't believe in change, even change that means growing up and developing as a human being. This may be why we are so violent: we are an immature nation.

Moore has a style that is off-putting to some but I can't exactly define his approach as being as bombastic and basically ineffectual as Rush Limbaugh who ends up most of the time speaking in ciphers.

Plainoldme,
...I feel I must be missing something here. "America doesn't make coming of age films?" I'm surprised LW, didn't jump all over that. Kids, can you say..."American Beauty"..."American Pie"...."Fast times At Ridgemont High"..Cooley High"....."Rebel Without a cause" I'm gonna' stop here, 'cause I could wear my fingers out before you tell me I misread you.

And don't forget, "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner."

C.I.,
...Whaddaya mean, because the parents, aged ten years, when they saw the mixed couple? (Hee-heee.. ..I slay me.)

I probably should have jumped on that one! "Hoop Dreams," probably one of the finest documentaries of the last two or three decades stands out in my mind. Rob Reiner's "Stand By Me" is another on my list of fine coming of age films. There are hundreds of titles, many of them in the last fifty years. My very favorite is "The 400 Blows," a French film but there aren't many really good ones, foreign or from Hollywood. Most of them are aimed at the popcorn matinee crowd and the are definitely not mature. America is still rough around the edges and the refinements are coming in small steps. This present administration is just definining the rough around the edges. A truly free society, especially one driven by capitalistic greed, breeds a lawlessness that will always have to be controlled. After all, isn't that what government is for?