Must See - Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine, just released
Mark
blown away.
This documentary explores the love/hate relationship that America has
with guns, war and violence. This movie is a definite must see and no
doubt will appear on
Best of 2002 movie lists.
Roger Ebert's comments:
TELLURIDE, Colo.--At some point early in his life, Michael Moore must
have found
himself wearing a baseball cap, a windbreaker, and a shirt hanging
outside his jeans, and decided he liked the look. That's what he was
wearing when I met him at the Telluride Film Festival in 1989, and
that's what he was wearing here Saturday. It is also what he wears in
"Bowling for Columbine," his new documentary film, when he goes
calling on K-Mart executives and Charlton Heston, the spokesman for
the National Rifle Association. He is not necessarily wearing the same
shirt and jeans, you understand. His closet must look a lot like
Archie's and Jughead's, with rows of identical uniforms. The clothes
send a message: Here is a man of the people, working-class. He may be
on television but he is not of television. In his films, he is a huge
hulking presence at the edge of the screen, doggedly firing questions
at people who desperately wish they were elsewhere. His face is
usually in shadow because of the baseball cap.
"Bowling for Columbine," which had its U.S. premiere here over the
weekend, as funny and abrasive as his hit "Roger & Me," and much more
sorrowful, is about the American love affair with guns. And not just
with guns, but with shooting: A higher percentage of Canadians than
Americans own guns, we learn, but they hardly ever shoot anyone with
them. Gunshot deaths in the United States are 10 to 20 times higher
than in other developed nations.
For once Moore does not seem to have the answers to all the questions
he asks, and there is a certain humility at moments in this film.
He talks to gun owners who say they feel safer with guns in the house,
and then he meditates on whether media coverage of violence may be
making them feel threatened. One of his many eye-opening statistics is
that in recent years violent death has been down 20 percent, but
coverage of it on TV has been up 600 percent.
In the most astonishing sequence in the film, he takes two survivors
of the Columbine massacre on a trip to K-Mart corporate headquarters.
Both teens still have bullets in their bodies that were purchased at
K-Mart, and in a Moore brainstorm they want to see if they can return
them for a refund. One of the boys actually shows a K-Mart
spokesperson the bullet scars on his back. K-Mart sends the usual
series of P.R.-types to deal with Moore's delegation, and we're
reminded of the General Motors spokesmen in "Roger & Me."
But then a totally unexpected thing happens. K-Mart tells Moore and
the boys it will stop selling ammunition in its stores. Moore is
stunned: No one has ever agreed with one of his demands before. He has
the K-Mart spokesperson repeat her promise. It's true. K-Mart won't
sell bullets.
That may help a little, but comedian Chris Rock may be on to something
in the film when he observes how cheap bullets are (the Columbine
bullets were 17 cents apiece). Why not price them at $5,000, he
suggests:
"And then you wouldn't have any innocent bystanders."
I'll review the movie at length when it opens, including Moore's
interview with
Charlton Heston and the way he links Michigan's "work for welfare"
laws to the death of a 6-year-old. After the Telluride screening, Ian
Waldron-Mantgani, a teenage film critic from Liverpool, England, was
shaking, literally shaking, as he left the theater. He was not alone.
ANIM8Rfsk
Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of his frauds?
Hitman of Las Vegas
wrote:
><< This documentary >>
>
>Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of his frauds?
Moore is a fraud. He can't show his mug around Flint anymore, they
hate his guts. He used them to get his momentum and never once
genuinely helped them, though offered plenty of lip service and
sanctimonious crap at the time.
So I wager his film may have its moments, but its likely a fraud.
ANIM8Rfsk
<< Moore is a fraud. >>
<< So I wager his film may have its moments, but its likely a fraud. >>
I'd say that's a pretty safe bet.
David
Notice how he blames everyone but the punks who shot everyone. Moore is an idiot.
Panic
@posting.google.com:
> I saw Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine today and was totally
> blown away.
No pun intended, right?
I think it's the best film of the year, so far. I absolutely loved it.
Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"It's a site."
Panic
news:20021011191643...@mb-cu.aol.com:
> << This documentary >>
>
> Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of his frauds?
It's more of that bitter reality your conservative mind just can't accept.
Gary T.
>
> So I wager his film may have its moments, but its likely a fraud.
You're an idiot -- more likely a right-winger -- spreading
disinformation. Michael Moore isn't thought of as a fraud anywhere
but people like you.
Gary T.
Hitman of Las Vegas
>anim...@aol.comNOSPAM (ANIM8Rfsk) wrote in
>news:20021011191643...@mb-cu.aol.com:
>
>> << This documentary >>
>>
>> Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of his frauds?
>
>It's more of that bitter reality your conservative mind just can't accept.
>
I think its likely a fraud, and I don't have a conservative mind.
Animeg3282
>I think its likely a fraud, and I don't have a conservative mind.
>
Ok, why is it a fraud? Facts? Noone can think something is bad just on
someone's assertion that it is.
Hana no Kaitou
http://peachcoloredsky.keenspace.com <--- Archives up.
http://members.fortunecity.com/animeg3282/ <---Fancy Lala Club! Back to
original page.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/fancy_lala <mailing list for Lala fans
Norman Wilner
news:20021011191643...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>
>> This documentary
>
> Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of
> his frauds?
I'm no fan of Moore's, and it bugs me that he still can't resist fudging
points here and there -- if you know anything at all about Toronto, his
assertions in a few key scenes are laughable -- but "Bowling for Columbine"
is still a terrific film.
I really don't know how to classify it in genre terms; it's less a
documentary than an audiovisual thesis, and yes, it ignores certain facts
that might not support the argument being presented. (Hey, it wouldn't be a
Moore film if it didn't.) But it's still amazing, and I'm pretty sure
Charlton Heston's recent claims of having a disease not dissimilar to
Alzheimer's are an attempt to dodge the absolutely horrifying -- and
apparently unprompted -- remarks he makes to Moore at the end of the film.
Norm "Hell, I'd dodge them, too" Wilner
Starweek Magazine/Metro Toronto
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd
Rick
Moore is
a liberal statist fraud. And I don't live that far from Flint either.
"Hitman of Las Vegas" <hitm...@goldust.com> wrote in message
news:pmmfqukl9sh6gb3fh...@4ax.com...
Richard
wrote:
>I have a conservative mind GO BUSH and more than likely it is a fraud cuz
>Moore is
>a liberal statist fraud. And I don't live that far from Flint either.
Moore's problem is the same one facing the Luddites in the 18th
century; The same way the industrial revolution did away with the
need for semi-skilled labour, the new World economy is transferring
jobs from the First to Third World. If Moore really wanted to make
an impact, opposing the insidious Kyoto Treaty would be a start.
It will do more harm to the First World economy than
anything else. But, Moore, like others of his kind really don't
care about the average American and instead beat the tired old
drum of leftism.
-Rich
"If Blockbuster continues to offer only Pan & Scan versions of
major movies from Warner, or any other studio offering widescreen
and P&S, please consider NOT renting anything from them."
Roq
assertions you found laughable. The no ghettos? The open doors? Or
what? I didn't hear anything I noted as being obviously incorrect. I
lived downtown, Etobicoke and in several suburbs, BTW.
Anyway, I live in LA now and the film was sold out all day here,
audiences were blown away by it, yes these were AMERICANS too ;>.
Incredible.
Roq
"Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in message news:<UkXp9.57910$zU5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
spauldingae
"Mark" <moggymi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f15d9e31.02101...@posting.google.com...
> I saw Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine today and was totally
> blown away.
> This documentary explores the love/hate relationship that America has
> with guns, war and violence. This movie is a definite must see and no
> doubt will appear on
> Best of 2002 movie lists.
Please tell me it's not Moore making a case that the Gun Industry and the
NRA are the roots of everything that is evil and wrong in America.
Because if it is, I've already seen it.
Sean O'Hara
not known for even-handedness. His documentaries are more slanted
than the sides of the Great Pyramids.
--
Sean O'Hara
"Thanks to these sterling efforts, they’re bringing significantly
closer the day when the entire Middle East, much of Africa and even
Europe will be under the Saddamite nuclear umbrella and thus safe
from Bush’s aggression." -Mark Steyn
Sean O'Hara
> If Moore really wanted to make
> an impact, opposing the insidious Kyoto Treaty would be a start.
>
Kyoto was intended as a photo-op so world leaders could appear to be
fighting global warming, but no one ever intended to actually
enforce it.
Sean O'Hara
>
> I really don't know how to classify it in genre terms; it's less a
> documentary than an audiovisual thesis, and yes, it ignores certain facts
> that might not support the argument being presented.
Agitprop.
Kevin Skinner
Norman Wilner
news:bdb71665.0210...@posting.google.com...
> "Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in message
news:<UkXp9.57910$zU5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>> "ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>> news:20021011191643...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>>>
>>>> This documentary
>>>
>>> Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of
>>> his frauds?
>>
>> I'm no fan of Moore's, and it bugs me that he still can't resist
>> fudging points here and there -- if you know anything at all
>> about Toronto, his assertions in a few key scenes are laughable --
>> but "Bowling for Columbine" is still a terrific film.
>
>
> Hey Norm, I was born and raised in Toronto and am wondering what
> assertions you found laughable. The no ghettos? The open doors?
> Or what? I didn't hear anything I noted as being obviously incorrect.
> I lived downtown, Etobicoke and in several suburbs, BTW.
The no-ghettos thing for a start, yeah; Moore went down to a relatively new
apartment complex at Jarvis and the Esplanade and said it was Toronto's
version of a slum. Only some of it is public housing; the far more
distressed neighborhoods of Regent Park or the Jane-Finch corridor are
Toronto's real slums, but they wouldn't have suited the image of a
squeaky-clean Canada he was trying to get across.
And the bit where he wanders around opening people's doors is so obviously
edited to remove all the doors he found locked that I think it undermines
the joke; people in the well-to-do area of Toronto he canvassed (somewhere
to the northeast of College and Bathurst, I believe) are probably as likely
to leave their doors unlocked _when they're at home_ as anyone in any suburb
of a major city. It's not some super-trusting Canadian thing, as he seems to
suggest.
Norm "Still a great movie, though" Wilner
Starweek Magazine/Metro Toronto
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd
Norman Wilner
message news:3DA9B542...@myrealbox.com...
> Norman Wilner wrote:
>>
>> I really don't know how to classify it in genre terms; it's less a
>> documentary than an audiovisual thesis, and yes, it ignores
>> certain facts that might not support the argument being
>> presented.
>
> Agitprop.
Some of it, yes, but not all of it. There's some surprisingly intelligent
personal commentary in there as well.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine/Metro Toronto
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd
Richard
Actually had he gone down to those neighbourhoods, he'd probably
still think that way. The city keeps the welfare housing in
pretty good shape, lawns always mowed, etc.
Some of the run down areas of downtown Toronto in the East would
suffice as slumlike.
SJRaff
>Please tell me it's not Moore making a case that the Gun Industry and the
>NRA are the roots of everything that is evil and wrong in America.
>
>Because if it is, I've already seen it.
>
>
Actually, and to my surprise, it's not. Sure, he takes Heston and the NRA to
task but for oncer I found Moore to be uniquely at a loss for answers here. He
brings up a simple statistical fact that is very obvious and rarely probed: why
is it that Americans shoot each other at an alarming rate? And blaming too many
guns isn't enough of an answer.
I found the film exploitive, funny, shockingly scary, informative, frustrating,
moving and ultimately reflective. One can only hope to see a film with those
qualities rarely these days.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Stephen Rafferty
*Los Angeles Celtic Supporters Club*
in TODD we trust
>Is it me, or is the title in very bad taste?
I think it's you...
What I think was in bad taste was trying to blame every form of media
for the fact that two disturbed kids with access to guns killed a
bunch of fellow students.
And considering how mean kids are to each other, and how easy it is to
load up on guns and ammo in this country, what surprises me is that
stories like Columbine aren't daily happenings.
Cheers,
Todd "Doom doesn't kill kids, kids with guns kill kids" McNeeley
.
email: mcneeley at enteract dot com
in TODD we trust
<xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote:
>The no-ghettos thing for a start, yeah; Moore went down to a relatively new
>apartment complex at Jarvis and the Esplanade and said it was Toronto's
>version of a slum. Only some of it is public housing; the far more
>distressed neighborhoods of Regent Park or the Jane-Finch corridor are
>Toronto's real slums, but they wouldn't have suited the image of a
>squeaky-clean Canada he was trying to get across.
NORM!
You know I love you right? And it is true that several years have past
since I was last in your fair city...
But I can eat a meal off the floor of your subways. I can drink the
water that collects in potholes on your streets. I can walk across the
city with cash safety pinned to my ass, and never once be accosted
(unless I were making disparaging remarks aboot hockey, eh).
Don't sit up there behind your unlocked door, in your Great Lily White
North city, and try to pretend you have slums. I'm from Chicago, and
see right through jealous little rant.
Cheers,
Todd "Americans may not have
invented slums, but we perfected them" McNeeley
in TODD we trust
wrote:
It would be a silly case to try and make. After all, the gun industry
and the gun lobby are just two of the many, many things that are evil
and wrong in America.
Cheers,
Todd "In fact, I like the NRA better than I like
the RIAA, the FCC, the FDA, and Oklahoma" McNeeley
RogerM
>
> I saw Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine today and was totally
> blown away.
> This documentary explores the love/hate relationship that America has
> with guns, war and violence. This movie is a definite must see and no
> doubt will appear on
> Best of 2002 movie lists.
>
It doesn't seem fair to me. Only rich people would be able to afford to go on shooting sprees.
--
WARNING: The above message likely contains one or more generalizations.
Please do not attempt to disprove them with isolated exceptions.
"What? It IS personal! HE'S GOT OUR UNDERPANTS!" - Alec Baldwin
"We're wasting more energy than Ricky Martin's girlfriend." - Groundskeeper Willie
"Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Now THERE'S a useful invention." - Comic Book Guy
Carl: "Let's make litter out of those literati!"
Lenny: "That's too clever! YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!"
RogerM
> >Please tell me it's not Moore making a case that the Gun Industry and the
> >NRA are the roots of everything that is evil and wrong in America.
> >
> >Because if it is, I've already seen it.
>
> It would be a silly case to try and make. After all, the gun industry
> and the gun lobby are just two of the many, many things that are evil
> and wrong in America.
>
Exactly right. We haven't even mentioned the tobacco and liquor companies.
Panic
Moore stages things, but I don't think he fakes them. The stuff in Bowling
for Columbine is definitely 1000% times more genuine than *anything* you
see on FOX NEWS. It's also less staged than the majority of news programs
on any network. He's being singled out because he's *gasp* a "liberal."
Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"It's a *gasp* 'liberal' site."
Panic
DQVDWg...@News.GigaNews.Com:
> I have a conservative mind GO BUSH and more than likely it is a fraud cuz
> Moore is
> a liberal statist fraud.
You more than likely think it's a "fraud" because you have a conservative
mind. You probably also believe things such as "global warming" and
"separation of church and state" are "frauds."
> And I don't live that far from Flint either.
Well hell, then you're 100% credible.
Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"It's a *gasp* 'liberal' site."
Panic
news:mu3iqu09gf7170st3...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 12 Oct 2002 21:15:39 -0400, "Rick" <videoj...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>>I have a conservative mind GO BUSH and more than likely it is a fraud cuz
>>Moore is
>>a liberal statist fraud. And I don't live that far from Flint either.
>
> Moore's problem is the same one facing the Luddites in the 18th
> century; The same way the industrial revolution did away with the
> need for semi-skilled labour, the new World economy is transferring
> jobs from the First to Third World. If Moore really wanted to make
> an impact, opposing the insidious Kyoto Treaty would be a start.
> It will do more harm to the First World economy than
> anything else. But, Moore, like others of his kind really don't
> care about the average American and instead beat the tired old
> drum of leftism.
> -Rich
Are you that same idiot who REFUSED to answer me, in another group, when I
asked you to describe what's wrong with socialism, and how you feel it is
hurting places such as Denmark, Finland, Sweden, etc.?
If you are, you are an idiot.
If you aren't, you are an idiot.
You have my condolensces.
Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"It's a *gasp* 'liberal' site."
Panic
news:20021013234031...@mb-mu.aol.com:
> Is it me, or is the title in very bad taste?
You won't think so after it's put into context. Go see the film.
Panic
> "ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
> news:20021011191643...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>>
>>> This documentary
>>
>> Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of
>> his frauds?
>
> I'm no fan of Moore's
Why not?
Just curious.
Glad you liked the movie. It's nice to agree with you, every so often.
;-)
Panic
@sccrnsc01:
You haven't already seen it.
And the NRA can be a real group of creeps, sometimes.
Panic
> in TODD we trust wrote:
>> >Please tell me it's not Moore making a case that the Gun Industry
>> >and the NRA are the roots of everything that is evil and wrong in
>> >America.
>> >
>> >Because if it is, I've already seen it.
>>
>> It would be a silly case to try and make. After all, the gun industry
>> and the gun lobby are just two of the many, many things that are evil
>> and wrong in America.
>>
>
> Exactly right. We haven't even mentioned the tobacco and liquor
> companies.
But, unlike the NRA, they're fucking up a lot more than just America. And
they're not all in American, either.
Norman Wilner
news:Xns92A7DA82A...@137.192.100.18...
> "Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
> news:UkXp9.57910$zU5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>> "ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>> news:20021011191643...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>>>
>>>> This documentary
>>>
>>> Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of
>>> his frauds?
>>
>> I'm no fan of Moore's
>
> Why not?
>
> Just curious.
For a start, I don't trust him. When he made "Roger and Me", he presented
the events as sequential, and we were led to believe that things in Flint
happened in the order they appeared on-screen. This was not the case; a
lengthy article in a subsequent issue of Film Comment enumerated the various
misstatements and leaps of truth in the film, and proved that not only did
Flint's three major employment-opportunity failures (Auto World, the Water
Street Pavillion and the renovated hotel) happen before the layoffs at the
Ford plant rather than after, as Moore's film appears to indicate, but that
Moore actually did meet with Ford CEO Roger Smith, and was even granted a
one-on-one interview with him during the "Roger and Me" production period.
Since the movie is all about Moore's pursuit of Smith, and his eventual
failure to speak with him, his failure to even mention that meeting within
the film seems to be a deliberate attempt to disregard the facts that don't
fit his thesis. That's unethical, to say the least.
And then there's the whole interview thing. He sets up every encounter so
that his subjects appear as defensive, and therefore as foolish, as
possible. If someone charges up to you unannounced, sticks a camera in your
face and starts asking hostile questions, you're going to stammer and
sputter too. I know people like to watch the suits squirm -- I certainly
enjoyed "Roger and Me" until I learned about the questions regarding its
veracity -- but there are ways to make the same point without tilting the
scales so unfairly, and Moore doesn't seem to care about doing that.
That said, in "Bowling for Columbine", the gravity of the subject seems to
ground him, and the movie's all the better for it.
Norm Wilner
Starweek Magazine/Metro Toronto
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd
Derek Janssen
>
> For a start, I don't trust him. When he made "Roger and Me", he presented
> the events as sequential, and we were led to believe that things in Flint
> happened in the order they appeared on-screen. This was not the case; a
> lengthy article in a subsequent issue of Film Comment enumerated the various
> misstatements and leaps of truth in the film, and proved that not only did
> Flint's three major employment-opportunity failures (Auto World, the Water
> Street Pavillion and the renovated hotel) happen before the layoffs at the
> Ford plant rather than after, as Moore's film appears to indicate, but that
> Moore actually did meet with Ford CEO Roger Smith, and was even granted a
> one-on-one interview with him during the "Roger and Me" production period.
> Since the movie is all about Moore's pursuit of Smith, and his eventual
> failure to speak with him, his failure to even mention that meeting within
> the film seems to be a deliberate attempt to disregard the facts that don't
> fit his thesis. That's unethical, to say the least.
On a chat, I pointed out that on his last "Who cares what the network
lawyers say, NBC's cancelled us already anyway" TV Nation episode--in
the segment where he first got to spout the great and noble "White
people whine too much" theory he would build on for the next five
years--as "evidence", he showed news footage of a Pat Buchanan
photo-stunt where Buchanan had rich white executives caged on the
Capitol steps as "Endangered Species"...
Uh, not quite, Mike: Pat's "Endangered Species" were logging execs, re
the latest corporate lumber-vs.-owls lawsuit.
Mr. Moore's response, and I quote directly?:
"I don't get it...Some people just don't understand Satire."
> And then there's the whole interview thing. He sets up every encounter so
> that his subjects appear as defensive, and therefore as foolish, as
> possible. If someone charges up to you unannounced, sticks a camera in your
> face and starts asking hostile questions, you're going to stammer and
> sputter too. I know people like to watch the suits squirm
And, as E&R pointed out in their review, what information--besides the
obvious squirming-for-laughs--could Dick Clark POSSIBLY provide about a
shooting at a Dick Clark restaurant?
(Guess we're lucky Roy Rogers isn't still alive.)
> I certainly
> enjoyed "Roger and Me" until I learned about the questions regarding its
> veracity -- but there are ways to make the same point without tilting the
> scales so unfairly, and Moore doesn't seem to care about doing that.
And then there's the one basic question, these days--
No matter how noble your intentions (although those anti-smoking "Truth"
ads seem to get the idea right), how does doing big goofy stunts in
public, shouting on the street with a bullhorn, and acting all facetious
to normal employed people who don't know who you are in the hopes that
they'll embarrass themselves trying to treat you seriously NOT turn you
a big, fat, older version of Tom Green?
Derek Janssen (thanks loads, Tom, can't even *watch* "The Awful Truth" anymore)
dja...@rcn.com
Panic
> "Panic" <viti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92A7DA82A...@137.192.100.18...
>> "Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
>> news:UkXp9.57910$zU5.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>>> "ANIM8Rfsk" <anim...@aol.comNOSPAM> wrote in message
>>> news:20021011191643...@mb-cu.aol.com...
>>>>
>>>>> This documentary
>>>>
>>>> Is this one actually a documentary, or another one of
>>>> his frauds?
>>>
>>> I'm no fan of Moore's
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>> Just curious.
>
> For a start, I don't trust him. When he made "Roger and Me", he
> presented the events as sequential, and we were led to believe that
> things in Flint happened in the order they appeared on-screen. This
> was not the case; a lengthy article in a subsequent issue of Film
> Comment enumerated the various misstatements and leaps of truth in the
> film,
Back in 1991, I addressed this issue in an Ethics class I was taking. The
professor showed the class, Roger & Me, which I had already seen, and I
shocked him by asking whether or not it was ethical to cut and paste
different sections of film to create a slightly skewered version of
"reality" which is there to serve your purposes. My question, and the
subsequent facts I gave about how Moore filmed and edited the documentary,
left the class debating for the rest of the hour. It was concluded that
Moore did nothing worse than any politician does in a debate, any special
interest group does when creating a campaign ad, or any biographer does
embellishing or eliminating certain facts from a biography. The class
concluded, and I concurred, that Moore never took it to a point where the
ends did not justify the means, and the message was the truth, even if the
way it was presented wasn't entirely honest.
Most of the things that we were shown in Roger & Me actually happened.
Sure, not all of them happened in the order they appeared to in the film,
but they happened. The only scene that leaves me with doubts is when Moore
is in that sort of dark place that looks like the Intergalactic Senate,
asking a question of Smith, only to be completely ignored in front of the
corporate elite. It looks as though Moore edited footage of himself into
the picture, asking his questions, and then cut to different footage of
Smith. If this is actually what he did, that is definitely ethically
questionable.
> and proved that not only did Flint's three major
> employment-opportunity failures (Auto World, the Water Street
> Pavillion and the renovated hotel) happen before the layoffs at the
> Ford plant rather than after, as Moore's film appears to indicate,
But does that make the layoffs any less powerful? No. Does it make for a
more interesting story? Yes.
> but
> that Moore actually did meet with Ford CEO Roger Smith, and was even
> granted a one-on-one interview with him during the "Roger and Me"
> production period.
That I did not know. Still, does that make Smith any less of an asshole?
I don't think so. Does the way Moore presented Smith make for a more
entertaining movie, and nastier "bad guy?" Obviously. Is manipulating the
facts to make your own documentary more entertaining ethical? It depends
on what your intentions are.
If Moore wanted the message to get out and people to *get* the message,
Moore accomplished that, and didn't go against his own moral code of
conduct, in doing so. If Moore wanted a 100% honest portrayal of
everything that went on in Flint in the order that it all occurred, even
though he wouldn't have near the audience he did for his film, but opted
for a bigger audience, instead, he went against his moral code of conduct,
and wasn't being ethical. I'd go for the former.
I ask you to flip to C-SPAN in the next couple of weeks and tune into a
political debate. After listening to the candidates, go look at their
actual voting records. Read their past speeches. What are these
candidates doing in presenting themselves to the public in 2002? They are
twisting some things to deliver a "based on a true story" version of
themselves that any dork could understand, and hopefully identify with.
It isn't easy to reach the vast majority of the American public. A large
part of this vast majority is ignorant by choice, ignorant, or incredibly
dumb. They're reactionary and it takes a LOT to get them off the couch, or
to even get them to understand anything that doesn't directly effect their
current living environment. Roger & Me hit home for a lot of these people.
A 100% factual Roger & Me may have gone over a lot of their heads, and
would have bored them. Instead of coming away from the film with
something, they would have shut it off to watch the rest of that night's
episode of "Wheel of Fortune" before returning the movie to the video store
and renting a bunch of vids for their next Stallone marathon.
> Since the movie is all about Moore's pursuit of
> Smith, and his eventual failure to speak with him, his failure to even
> mention that meeting within the film seems to be a deliberate attempt
> to disregard the facts that don't fit his thesis. That's unethical, to
> say the least.
I guess that's all in the eye of the beholder. Also, was this interview
offered AFTER Moore had completed filming what we see on screen? If so, he
is giving us the truth, up to the point where the film ends. If Smith's PR
men told him that it looks like this thing may be big, and he should give a
few minutes to Moore, right at the end of production, after ignoring
Moore's every attempt at an interview, how would the film be dishonest?
Moore could have said, "Smith finally offered a one on one interview after
the events seen in this documentary took place," without hurting the film,
or Moore. It would have just made Smith look an even bigger prick. I
don't see how it was necessary.
In The Big One, Moore made a point to show interviews with Nike's Phil
Knight, and Knight didn't come off as a nice guy buy granting Moore an
interview, or two. He came off as a smug bastard who doesn't care about
America, Americans or the economy. Moore could have easily done the
interview with Smith in "Roger & Me," and would have inevitably revealed
him to be the same kind of person as Knight. I think Moore showed mercy by
not showing/conducting an interview with Smith.
> And then there's the whole interview thing. He sets up every encounter
> so that his subjects appear as defensive, and therefore as foolish, as
> possible. If someone charges up to you unannounced, sticks a camera in
> your face and starts asking hostile questions, you're going to stammer
> and sputter too. I know people like to watch the suits squirm -- I
> certainly enjoyed "Roger and Me" until I learned about the questions
> regarding its veracity -- but there are ways to make the same point
> without tilting the scales so unfairly, and Moore doesn't seem to care
> about doing that.
I don't agree. And why don't I hear these same complaints about Sean
Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or any of these other right wing zealots? These
people do the exact same thing every time they interview someone. Hannity
is a master of asking completely inappropriate questions that weren't
expected by the guest, for no other purpose than to throw the guest off and
make Hannity look like he's in the right (no pun intended). No, I don't
think two wrongs make a right, but I do think that people in the middle of
the road, or to the left of it, need to lay off of each other a little bit,
every so often, and possibly question somebody on the other side.
> That said, in "Bowling for Columbine", the gravity of the subject
> seems to ground him, and the movie's all the better for it.
I think Roger & Me is better, as a film, but Bowling for Columbine does
seem to be more honestly presented and Moore doesn't seem as though he had
as clear cut an idea for a "story" in the movie, and ends up with at least
as many questions as he had when he started filming, and not many more
answers. It's a wonderful documentary.
spauldingae
> "spauldingae" <spaul...@home.com> wrote in news:JDaq9.23787$oq6.9863
> @sccrnsc01:
>
> >
> > "Mark" <moggymi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > news:f15d9e31.02101...@posting.google.com...
> >> I saw Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine today and was totally
> >> blown away.
> >> This documentary explores the love/hate relationship that America has
> >> with guns, war and violence. This movie is a definite must see and no
> >> doubt will appear on
> >> Best of 2002 movie lists.
> >
> > Please tell me it's not Moore making a case that the Gun Industry and
the
> > NRA are the roots of everything that is evil and wrong in America.
> >
> > Because if it is, I've already seen it.
>
> You haven't already seen it.
I remember right after Columbine happened. I got pretty sick of certain
segments of society using it for their political advantage before the blood
had dried.
And then every time there was a shooting.
> And the NRA can be a real group of creeps, sometimes.
How?
steve
shallow, undereducated, lazy, and bias. Has anyone read Stupid White Men?
Some of it is very good - and some of it is the usual crackpot Moore stuff.
The move will probably be the same thing, but more than worth seeing.
steve
"Panic" <viti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Xns92A7D9A81...@137.192.100.18...
Thomas Andrews
"steve" <stevel...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aohcrg$mfotn$1...@ID-153269.news.dfncis.de...
> "kiss me I'm a liberal" (any phil ochs fans?) but i too think Moore is a
bit
> shallow, undereducated, lazy, and bias. Has anyone read Stupid White Men?
> Some of it is very good - and some of it is the usual crackpot Moore
stuff.
> The move will probably be the same thing, but more than worth seeing.
>
> steve
>
Moore re-won my affection when he had Yaphet Kotto try to hail a cab in NYC.
He had Kotto standing in a suit, about 10 yards in front of an-shaven white
guy in jeans and a T-shirt (the white guy was also a convicted murderer, but
that detail, IMHO, was irrelevant.) Anyway, almost all of the cabs stopped
for the white guy. So they put a huge bouquet of flowers in Kotto's hands,
and still the cabs picked up the white guy. Finally, they had Kotto holding
a baby in one arm, the boquet of flowers in another, and still, the cabs
by-passed him for the grungy white guy.
It was simultaneously hilarious and very sad.
--
Thomas Andrews (tho...@best.com) http://thomaso.best.vwh.net/
Misplaced Patriotism: http://thomaso.best.vwh.net/flag.html
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>Moore re-won my affection when he had Yaphet Kotto try to hail a cab in NYC.
>
>He had Kotto standing in a suit, about 10 yards in front of an-shaven white
>guy in jeans and a T-shirt (the white guy was also a convicted murderer, but
>that detail, IMHO, was irrelevant.) Anyway, almost all of the cabs stopped
>for the white guy. So they put a huge bouquet of flowers in Kotto's hands,
>and still the cabs picked up the white guy. Finally, they had Kotto holding
>a baby in one arm, the boquet of flowers in another, and still, the cabs
>by-passed him for the grungy white guy.
>
>It was simultaneously hilarious and very sad.
Yes, that's a classic Moore skit. Very clever and memorable.
Like most of Moore's stuff, it doesn't actually address the problems it touches
upon with any depth, although it appears at a cursory glance that he's made a
point. But it is, like you say, both sad and funny.
(I haven't seen his new film yet.)
--Kevin
Derek Janssen
>
> "Thomas Andrews" tho...@best.com wrote:
>
> >Moore re-won my affection when he had Yaphet Kotto try to hail a cab in NYC.
> >
> >He had Kotto standing in a suit, about 10 yards in front of an-shaven white
> >guy in jeans and a T-shirt (the white guy was also a convicted murderer, but
> >that detail, IMHO, was irrelevant.) Anyway, almost all of the cabs stopped
> >for the white guy. So they put a huge bouquet of flowers in Kotto's hands,
> >and still the cabs picked up the white guy. Finally, they had Kotto holding
> >a baby in one arm, the boquet of flowers in another, and still, the cabs
> >by-passed him for the grungy white guy.
> >
> >It was simultaneously hilarious and very sad.
>
> Yes, that's a classic Moore skit. Very clever and memorable.
Unfortunately, so memorable that Moore hoped to turning it into a
signature franchise, and tried to bring on the grungy white ex-prison
guy as a crony-regular on the show--
And only Fox's cancellation stopped us from getting a "hilarious"
running TV Nation feature where Grungy White Ex-Prison Guy would read
viewer letters to the show, shrug "What a piece a' crap", and throw them away...
Derek Janssen (uh, Mike?...You just don't want to have a paying gig at
ALL, do you?)
dja...@rcn.com
andy
"Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in message
True, but nevertheless Toronto (or Canada as a whole) does not have anything
as bad as some areas of Miami or Washington DC. Its Moore trying to make a
point to the masses by clobbering them over the head with extremes. I'd be
the first to admit, though, that sometimes his shamelessness has no
boundaries...
>
> And the bit where he wanders around opening people's doors is so obviously
> edited to remove all the doors he found locked that I think it undermines
> the joke; people in the well-to-do area of Toronto he canvassed (somewhere
> to the northeast of College and Bathurst, I believe) are probably as
likely
> to leave their doors unlocked _when they're at home_ as anyone in any
suburb
> of a major city. It's not some super-trusting Canadian thing, as he seems
to
> suggest.
College and Bathurst is the northwest corner of what could be considered
UofT campus - where students live primarily. In fact, 2 of the houses I
recognized as being on the street just south of College, east of St George
ie. right in the middle of campus.
My point? I believe a lot of doors were left open because students lived
there - nothing worth stealing anyways :-)
And it is a great film - his best work to date.
Thomas Andrews
"Kevin FilmNutBoy" <filmn...@aol.commode> wrote in message
news:20021015124209...@mb-fz.aol.com...
Well, it depends on what you mean by "touches upon with any depth." My take
on it was that it was dispelling illusions whites have - "it's not so bad."
That is, many people had heard the complaints, but didn't really get the
extent and absurdity of it.
In other words, it was an education issue; not an exploration of blacks
being passed up by cabbies but an illustration of the problem in a way that
it couldn't be denied or glossed over.
The One and Only Billy Shears
wrote:
The ex-con's name was Louie Bruno. IIRC, Moore only used him in one
other sketch on TV Nation -- Louie was running for President with the
campaign slogan "Vote for Louie, he won't rat you out". The "Louie
for Prez" sketch was funny, but not as memorable as the cab sketch.
It ended with Louie shaking Bob Dole's hand and telling Dole he was
Dole's competition. Turned out that, for whatever reason, Crackers
the Crimefighting Chicken had more of a shelf life than Louie Bruno.
The Yaphet Kotto cab bit was probably the best bit to come from either
of Moore's TV series. I liked Moore cohort Louis Theroux's BBC/Bravo
series "Louis Theroux's Weird Weekends", too.
Tom Cervo
>the events as sequential, and we were led to believe that things in Flint
>happened in the order they appeared on-screen. This was not the case; a
>lengthy article in a subsequent issue of Film Comment enumerated the various
>misstatements and leaps of truth in the film, and proved that not only did
>Flint's three major employment-opportunity failures (Auto World, the Water
>Street Pavillion and the renovated hotel) happen before the layoffs at the
>Ford plant rather than after, as Moore's film appears to indicate, but that
>Moore actually did meet with Ford CEO Roger Smith, and was even granted a
>one-on-one interview with him during the "Roger and Me" production period.
>Since the movie is all about Moore's pursuit of Smith, and his eventual
>failure to speak with him, his failure to even mention that meeting within
>the film seems to be a deliberate attempt to disregard the facts that don't
>fit his thesis. That's unethical, to say the least.
Obviously you weren't paying much attention, since the firm in question was
General Motors. Flint was the birthplace of same. In the 70's GM starting
moving its plants south to Mexico and to Right-to-Work (anti-Union) states.
Moore's movie was about that movement and the unconscionability of such a
move--US corporations moving their plants overseas to take advantage of
"pliable" governments.
You may see nothing wrong with that, right up to the moment that you find that
publishers start using cheap scribes from India to write articles for half your
price.
As for veracity, quoting "Film Comment" or Pauline Kael hardly ranks as
research. (I stopped looking at FC when they started sucking up to SS by
writing scholarly articles about "Hook".)
I've lived in Flint for 48 years. I knew Mike Moore and the Bunny Lady--to say
"Hi" to, but that's something PK couldn't say. He's right about most of what he
filmed; he may not be as smooth as Tucker Carlson but he believes what he talks
about, and knows it through experience.
Norman Wilner
news:20021016001842...@mb-mg.aol.com...
>
>> For a start, I don't trust him. When he made "Roger and Me",
>> he presented the events as sequential, and we were led to
>> believe that things in Flint happened in the order they appeared
>> on-screen. This was not the case; a lengthy article in a
>> subsequent issue of Film Comment enumerated the various
>> misstatements and leaps of truth in the film, and proved that
>> not only did Flint's three major employment-opportunity failures
>> (Auto World, the Water Street Pavillion and the renovated hotel)
>> happen before the layoffs at the Ford plant rather than after, as
>> Moore's film appears to indicate, but that Moore actually did
>> meet with Ford CEO Roger Smith, and was even granted a one-
>> on-one interview with him during the "Roger and Me" production
>> period. Since the movie is all about Moore's pursuit of Smith,
>> and his eventual failure to speak with him, his failure to even
>> mention that meeting within the film seems to be a deliberate
>> attempt to disregard the facts that don't fit his thesis. That's
>> unethical, to say the least.
>
> Obviously you weren't paying much attention, since the firm in
> question was General Motors.
Yes, clearly, confusing one American automaker for another at two in the
morning invalidates everything else I've said ...
> Flint was the birthplace of same. In the 70's GM starting moving its
> plants south to Mexico and to Right-to-Work (anti-Union) states.
> Moore's movie was about that movement and the unconscionability
> of such a move--US corporations moving their plants overseas to
> take advantage of "pliable" governments. You may see nothing wrong
> with that, right up to the moment that you find that publishers start
> using cheap scribes from India to write articles for half your price.
Whether I agree or disagree with Moore's argument wasn't the issue. (I agree
with it, for the most part.) My problems are largely rooted in how he chose
to make that argument.
> As for veracity, quoting "Film Comment" or Pauline Kael hardly
> ranks as research. (I stopped looking at FC when they started
> sucking up to SS by writing scholarly articles about "Hook".)
Again, I must point out that you haven't actually disproved any of the
claims I cited. And why'd you bring up Pauline Kael? I never mentioned her.
> I've lived in Flint for 48 years. I knew Mike Moore and the Bunny
> Lady--to say "Hi" to, but that's something PK couldn't say. He's right
> about most of what he filmed; he may not be as smooth as Tucker
> Carlson but he believes what he talks about, and knows it through
> experience.
Again, can't help but notice you haven't actually addressed any the points
in my post. You can live in Flint and like Moore all you want. Hell, I met
him in Toronto last month, and _I_ like him; we had a terrific interview. It
doesn't mean I'll believe a thing he says without outside verification.
Norm "Is Tucker Carlson the CNN guy?" Wilner
Starweek Magazine/Metro Toronto
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd
Kevin FilmNutBoy
Perhaps because two straw men arguments weren't quite enough?
--Kevin
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>Well, it depends on what you mean by "touches upon with any depth." My take
>on it was that it was dispelling illusions whites have - "it's not so bad."
>That is, many people had heard the complaints, but didn't really get the
>extent and absurdity of it.
>
>In other words, it was an education issue; not an exploration of blacks
>being passed up by cabbies but an illustration of the problem in a way that
>it couldn't be denied or glossed over.
But the trouble with Moore's approach is that it could be denied. If Kotto had
been picked up by a cab immediately after filming began, do you think Moore
would have showed this, and said, "Well, I guess the problem isn't so bad after
all"? Of course not. He would have edited it out. It's conceivable that
Kotto got a cab a number of times that were not shown to us. This wasn't a
scientific experiment, of course, and we certainly didn't see all the data, nor
can we really be sure that what was shown is an accurate representation of the
problem. All we can be sure of is that it was a clever illustration of a
widely reported situation.
Moore isn't an objective documentarian, out to discover the truth with his
camera. He's a video essayist, and he concocts scenarios that will illustrate
opinions that he held before the cameras rolled. There's nothing inherently
wrong with this approach, as long as the viewer is saavy to what's going on.
--Kevin
Kevin FilmNutBoy
>"Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
>news:ZhLq9.3199$q83.4...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>I know people like to watch the suits squirm -- I
>> certainly enjoyed "Roger and Me" until I learned about the questions
>> regarding its veracity -- but there are ways to make the same point
>> without tilting the scales so unfairly, and Moore doesn't seem to care
>> about doing that.
>
>I don't agree. And why don't I hear these same complaints about Sean
>Hannity, Rush Limbaugh or any of these other right wing zealots?
Because you're not listening?
Seriously, if you haven't heard these same complaints about guys like Limbaugh,
it's time to come out of the cave.
--Kevin
Panic
news:aohcrg$mfotn$1...@ID-153269.news.dfncis.de:
> "kiss me I'm a liberal" (any phil ochs fans?) but i too think Moore is
> a bit shallow, undereducated, lazy, and bias. Has anyone read Stupid
> White Men? Some of it is very good - and some of it is the usual
> crackpot Moore stuff. The move will probably be the same thing, but
> more than worth seeing.
The movie is far better than the Stupid White Men novel. Stupid White Men
was more like Moore's film, "The Big One," which left me a bit
disappointed. I agree with you 100% that Stupid White Men was excellent in
parts, but sort of lost it in other parts, where it went off into mindless
sort of SNL skit type chapters. Overall, I still thought it was a good
read.
Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"It's still called, 'germs.'"
Panic
news:20021015124209...@mb-fz.aol.com:
It's both sad and funny.
Panic
news:mr1pqu8e1i70ajljm...@4ax.com:
I also really enjoyed the bit where a bunch of people "invaded" an
exclusive beach for the ultra-elite.
Classic stuff.
Panic
news:7e_q9.126786$Yb1.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net:
I agree. Unfortunately, some people want everything spelled out for
them. This is something Moore rarely does.
Panic
> Again, I must point out that you haven't actually disproved any of the
> claims I cited.
I challenged them and gave reasons why I didn't think how Moore put the
film together wasn't unethical, but you chose not to address anything I
said. Either that or my server never downloaded your response. Oh well.
> Norm "Is Tucker Carlson the CNN guy?" Wilner
He's the conservative geek with the little tie. I don't know what network
he's currently working for. He was doing a show for CNN for a while during
the whole Florida hanging chads thingie.
Norman Wilner
> "Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
> news:kp6r9.3953$q83.8...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
>> Again, I must point out that you haven't actually disproved any
>> of the claims I cited.
>
> I challenged them and gave reasons why I didn't think how Moore
> put the film together wasn't unethical, but you chose not to
> address anything I said. Either that or my server never downloaded
> your response. Oh well.
The reply above was addressed to Tom Cervo; my reply to your post was lost
when my computer crashed the other day, but with any luck I'll have
something for you later tonight. (It mostly amounts to "With moral high
ground comes great responsibility", but I intend to elaborate.)
>> Norm "Is Tucker Carlson the CNN guy?" Wilner
>
> He's the conservative geek with the little tie. I don't know what
> network he's currently working for. He was doing a show for CNN
> for a while during the whole Florida hanging chads thingie.
I thought I flipped past him on "Crossfire", but I couldn't really tell --
all the pundits are starting to look the same to me, conservative or
otherwise.
Norm "Except Carville; he's distinctive" Wilner
Starweek Magazine/Metro Toronto
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd
Giftzwerg
xn...@xwilnervision.xcom says...
> Moore actually did meet with Ford CEO Roger Smith, and was even granted a
> one-on-one interview with him during the "Roger and Me" production period.
> Since the movie is all about Moore's pursuit of Smith, and his eventual
> failure to speak with him, his failure to even mention that meeting within
> the film seems to be a deliberate attempt to disregard the facts that don't
> fit his thesis. That's unethical, to say the least.
Feh. You expected *ethics* from that fat fuckin' greaseball blivet?
Moore just makes his dopey socialist points in the only way that such
points can be made; serial prevarication. I'm astounded that you
expected anything more interesting from such a repugnant little leftist
troll.
--
Giftzwerg
***
"The sight of the Democratic Party 'wrestling'
(as Al [Gore] put it) with its conscience over
Iraq is like some old-time carney freakshow:
It's strangely compelling, but you can't help
feeling it's cruel to put these misfits on public
display."
- Mark Steyn
Panic
> "Panic" <viti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns92A925689...@137.192.100.18...
>> "Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
>> news:kp6r9.3953$q83.8...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>>
>>> Again, I must point out that you haven't actually disproved any
>>> of the claims I cited.
>>
>> I challenged them and gave reasons why I didn't think how Moore
>> put the film together wasn't unethical, but you chose not to
>> address anything I said. Either that or my server never downloaded
>> your response. Oh well.
>
> The reply above was addressed to Tom Cervo; my reply to your post was
> lost when my computer crashed the other day, but with any luck I'll
> have something for you later tonight.
If you don't, don't worry about it.
> (It mostly amounts to "With
> moral high ground comes great responsibility", but I intend to
> elaborate.)
Now you've peaked my interest.
>>> Norm "Is Tucker Carlson the CNN guy?" Wilner
>>
>> He's the conservative geek with the little tie. I don't know what
>> network he's currently working for. He was doing a show for CNN
>> for a while during the whole Florida hanging chads thingie.
>
> I thought I flipped past him on "Crossfire", but I couldn't really
> tell -- all the pundits are starting to look the same to me,
> conservative or otherwise.
They're starting to sound the same, also.
Yikes.
> Norm "Except Carville; he's distinctive" Wilner
In looks, voice and mannerisms. That guy looks and acts like a
friggin' bulldog, only not as polite. ;-)
Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"Full-length review of THE RING added today!"
Panic
news:jumqqu4552ahsbe4a...@4ax.com:
>> From: steve (Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:39:27 -0400)
>> MsgId: <aohcrg$mfotn$1...@ID-153269.news.dfncis.de>
>>
>> "kiss me I'm a liberal" (any phil ochs fans?) but i too think Moore
>> is a bit shallow, undereducated, lazy, and bias. Has anyone read
>> Stupid White Men? Some of it is very good - and some of it is the
>> usual crackpot Moore stuff. The move will probably be the same thing,
>> but more than worth seeing.
>
> Nobody is claiming Mr. Moore is a Rhodes Scholar. He's an average guy
> with above average ambition and determination to get his observations
> across. (Ambition will beat talent almost every time).
See George W. Bush. ;-)
Norman Wilner
> "Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
> news:NDcr9.5265$q83.8...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>> "Panic" <viti...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:Xns92A925689...@137.192.100.18...
>>> "Norman Wilner" <xn...@xwilnervision.xcom> wrote in
>>> news:kp6r9.3953$q83.8...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>>>
>>>> Again, I must point out that you haven't actually disproved any
>>>> of the claims I cited.
>>>
>>> I challenged them and gave reasons why I didn't think how Moore
>>> put the film together wasn't unethical, but you chose not to
>>> address anything I said. Either that or my server never downloaded
>>> your response. Oh well.
>>
>> The reply above was addressed to Tom Cervo; my reply to your
>> post was lost when my computer crashed the other day, but with
>> any luck I'll have something for you later tonight.
>
> If you don't, don't worry about it.
Nah, I'll get to it -- it's just been a particularly busy week here, and my
"done" pile isn't even close to where it should be.
>> (It mostly amounts to "With moral high ground comes
>> great responsibility", but I intend to elaborate.)
>
> Now you've peaked my interest.
I'll do my best to deliver ...
Norm "... about 2500 words from now" Wilner
Starweek Magazine/Metro Toronto
www.zap2it.com/movies/videodvd
The One and Only Billy Shears
>mikah <mi...@nospam4me.invalid> wrote in
>news:jumqqu4552ahsbe4a...@4ax.com:
>
>>> From: steve (Tue, 15 Oct 2002 11:39:27 -0400)
>>> MsgId: <aohcrg$mfotn$1...@ID-153269.news.dfncis.de>
>>>
>>> "kiss me I'm a liberal" (any phil ochs fans?) but i too think Moore
>>> is a bit shallow, undereducated, lazy, and bias. Has anyone read
>>> Stupid White Men? Some of it is very good - and some of it is the
>>> usual crackpot Moore stuff. The move will probably be the same thing,
>>> but more than worth seeing.
>>
>> Nobody is claiming Mr. Moore is a Rhodes Scholar. He's an average guy
>> with above average ambition and determination to get his observations
>> across. (Ambition will beat talent almost every time).
>
>See George W. Bush. ;-)
Of course, in Forrest, er, Dubya's case, a little help from "Antonio"
Scalia and a true believer like Kathy Harris doesn't hurt...
Richard
Carville is a loud, slimy, dictatorial Liberal one step
up from his hick Southern backwater roots.
-Rich
"If Blockbuster continues to offer only Pan & Scan versions of
major movies from Warner, or any other studio offering widescreen
and P&S, please consider NOT renting anything from them."
John S. Watson
> "Mark" <moggymi...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:f15d9e31.02101...@posting.google.com...
> > I saw Michael Moore's Bowling for Columbine today and was totally
> > blown away.
> > This documentary explores the love/hate relationship that America has
> > with guns, war and violence. This movie is a definite must see and no
> > doubt will appear on
> > Best of 2002 movie lists.
>
> Please tell me it's not Moore making a case that the Gun Industry and the
> NRA are the roots of everything that is evil and wrong in America.
>
> Because if it is, I've already seen it.
Actually, this is what one review (Glenn Lovell, San Jose Mercury News,
10/17/2002) says:
If this were the extent of Moore's coverage, we could laugh off
``Bowling'' as a decent Comedy Central sketch and be on our merry
way. Thirty minutes in, however, we realize he's after bigger game
-- an answer to the questions: Why are Americans so innately
violent? What is it that makes us want to resolve every dispute with
a club or a rifle?
His answer, buttressed by interviews, statistics and horrifying
video of real-life mayhem, is as sound as it is obvious: Since our
founding fathers waded ashore, we have hated and feared anyone who
didn't look like our founding fathers. We're racist and paranoid by
nature. Hence, the inclination, at the least provocation, to pick up
a gun and circle the wagons.
Which seems like kind of a bizarre analysis to me.
Although, is that really Moore's answer in the movie,
or is that just this one particular reviewer's goofy interpretation?
Like, what about all the people in the US that don't
look like our Founding Fathers, that are killed by other people
in the US that don't look like our founding fathers?
Anyway, I'll probably rent BFC when it comes out on DVD,
but I'm weary of it because, like all Moore's stuff,
it sounds very manipulative, and like all Moore's stuff,
it pretends to be a documentary,when it is really just total fiction.
JW
Panic
You had to go and dig those names up, again. Now I'm gonna have
nightmares.
Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"Never eat at Arby's on Lake Street."
in TODD we trust
wrote:
>You don't have to be the smartest guy in the room to make valid points.
True. Look at all of us :-)
Cheers,
Todd "please join me in a moment of self deprecating bonding" McNeeley
.
email: mcneeley at enteract dot com
in TODD we trust
wrote:
>>Well, it depends on what you mean by "touches upon with any depth." My take
>>on it was that it was dispelling illusions whites have - "it's not so bad."
>>That is, many people had heard the complaints, but didn't really get the
>>extent and absurdity of it.
>>
>>In other words, it was an education issue; not an exploration of blacks
>>being passed up by cabbies but an illustration of the problem in a way that
>>it couldn't be denied or glossed over.
>
>But the trouble with Moore's approach is that it could be denied. If Kotto had
>been picked up by a cab immediately after filming began, do you think Moore
>would have showed this, and said, "Well, I guess the problem isn't so bad after
>all"? Of course not. He would have edited it out. It's conceivable that
>Kotto got a cab a number of times that were not shown to us. This wasn't a
>scientific experiment, of course, and we certainly didn't see all the data, nor
>can we really be sure that what was shown is an accurate representation of the
>problem. All we can be sure of is that it was a clever illustration of a
>widely reported situation.
It was a clever illustration of a very real problem. We live in a
society where many actually believe racism is over. It isn't. It is
deep and ingrained and institutionalized. Denying that is... is...
well... immoral, if not just plain blind.
>Moore isn't an objective documentarian, out to discover the truth with his
>camera.
Who is? You know better than this. I'm certain you've taken the
classes. If you want facts, watch Nova. Great documentary filmmaking
can also be about presenting a point of view. It's another form of
storytelling.
>He's a video essayist, and he concocts scenarios that will illustrate
>opinions that he held before the cameras rolled. There's nothing inherently
>wrong with this approach, as long as the viewer is saavy to what's going on.
A video essayist might also be known by their more common name,
documentary filmmaker. And the responsibility of being savvy is on the
viewer, not the filmmaker.
Cheers,
Todd "a huge fan of future President Moore" McNeeley
in TODD we trust
>Carville is a loud, slimy, dictatorial Liberal one step
>up from his hick Southern backwater roots.
>-Rich
And you aren't qualified to wipe his ass.
Cheers,
Todd "okay... that was mean" McNeeley
in TODD we trust
wrote:
>I remember right after Columbine happened. I got pretty sick of certain
>segments of society using it for their political advantage before the blood
>had dried.
>
>And then every time there was a shooting.
What I was getting tired of was the never ending mantra of "how can we
stop this horrible epidemic of school shootings?"
From the pundits, politicians, and average people of the streets,
you'd think hundreds of children were slain every day for years. But
in fact, as is often the case when mass hysteria occurs, there was a
statistical anomaly for a short while...
When was the last major incident? Where is the epidemic of violence in
schools today?
Cheers,
Todd "Statistics can be your friend" McNeeley
in TODD we trust
wrote:
>Anyway, I'll probably rent BFC when it comes out on DVD,
>but I'm weary of it because, like all Moore's stuff,
>it sounds very manipulative, and like all Moore's stuff,
>it pretends to be a documentary,when it is really just total fiction.
To a very great extent, all documentaries are total fictions.
Cheers,
Todd "give or take a few degrees" McNeeley
in TODD we trust
>It doesn't seem fair to me. Only rich people would be able to afford to go on shooting sprees.
True. Currently everyone can afford to go on a murderous rampage. Only
the rich can afford to get away with it.
Cheers,
Todd "To be fair, OJ used a knife" McNeeley
in TODD we trust
wrote:
>> From: Richard (Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:45:28 GMT)
>> MsgId: <vtbuqugo9k0eptr4c...@4ax.com>
>>
>> Carville is a loud, slimy, dictatorial Liberal one step
>> up from his hick Southern backwater roots.
>
>And yet, he gets invited to Universities to lecture, and you get put on
>Usenet kill filters. Wotta World.
You are too cool! :-)
Cheers,
Todd "Be my Mary Matalin" McNeeley
Vern
than there actually are in the world? Somebody's gotta be fakin it.
Anyway, I saw this movie tonight and it was incredible. I agree that
it is a must see, whether or not you agree with Michael Moore's
politics. I have seen some negative reviews and what these people
don't seem to get is that Michael Moore does not tell you what to
think. He doesn't answer his question. The arguments I've heard are
ridiculous because even if these people talking out of their asses
here were right, and the whole thing was "a fraud"
(which would mean, I guess, that the interviews and stock footage were
all faked? The media really DOESN'T terrorize us with stories of
killer bees and viruses and killers? Charlton Heston really doesn't
stage NRA meetings in towns where gun related tragedies have just
happened? I don't even get what you're trying to lie about)
that still doesn't answer the question - what in fuck's name IS going
on in this country? The movie makes alot of good points but more
importantly it leaves you trying to figure it out for yourself. It
doesn't give you some phoney wrapup at the end that pretends to
explain all the answers for you.
One sign that you people don't know what you're talking about – you
keep talking about gun control. Although it comes up a couple times,
this movie doesn't even really argue for gun control. In fact Michael
Moore points out to Charlton Heston that countries with almost as many
guns as us (like Canada) don't have as many gun deaths as us. And he
wonders why. And neither of them really has the definitive answer.
Also, Michael Moore haters tend to think he is trying to paint
everybody as bad guys in his movies, but that just isn't the case.
Discussing the movie afterward most people seemed to agree that they
kind of liked the guys in the Michigan militia, and that the interview
with Heston was sad.
This is an entertaining movie but it's alot sadder than it is funny. I
felt like I was about to cry through half of the damn movie. It's an
amazingly timely movie, and I think it's one everybody should watch
and consider, and discuss.
Except some of you fuckin nitwits. But some of you can go.
thanks bud,
Rico
news:jk3vqucmb4b0hf691...@4ax.com...
> From: Richard (Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:45:28 GMT)
> MsgId: <vtbuqugo9k0eptr4c...@4ax.com>
>> Carville is a loud, slimy, dictatorial
>> Liberal one step up from his hick Southern
>> backwater roots.
Oh my God! A dictatorial Liberal! You really know how to
throw an insult.
> And yet, he gets invited to Universities to
> lecture, and you get put on Usenet kill
> filters. Wotta World.
LoL!
("Wotta great country." -- Yakov Smirnov)
Rico
news:cab33016.02101...@posting.google.com...
> Is it just me, or are there more right wing
> nutballs in this newsgroup than there
> actually are in the world? Somebody's gotta
> be fakin' it. ....
> This is an entertaining movie ...
> ...and I think it's one everybody should watch
> and consider, and discuss.
> Except some of you fuckin. nitwits.
> But some of you can go.
(LoL twice in the same thread.)
Richard
<nu...@myserver.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:32:15 -0500, mikah <mi...@nospam4me.invalid>
>wrote:
>
>>> From: Richard (Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:45:28 GMT)
>>> MsgId: <vtbuqugo9k0eptr4c...@4ax.com>
>>>
>>> Carville is a loud, slimy, dictatorial Liberal one step
>>> up from his hick Southern backwater roots.
>>
>>And yet, he gets invited to Universities to lecture, and you get put on
>>Usenet kill filters. Wotta World.
>
>You are too cool! :-)
>
>Cheers,
Yes, he does get invited to universities to lecture. But
university students and professors have always shown a
penchant for listening to the dronings of left-wing ravers.
Are you going to mention Carville's name in association with
some of the socialist terrorists who have been invited from
time to time to lecture at the more radical universities
in the U.S.?
My worst nightmare would be to have that hyena as president.
Good thing that will never happen.
Richard
>Is it just me, or are there more right wing nutballs in this newsgroup
>than there actually are in the world? Somebody's gotta be fakin it.
>
>Anyway, I saw this movie tonight and it was incredible. I agree that
>it is a must see, whether or not you agree with Michael Moore's
>politics. I have seen some negative reviews and what these people
>don't seem to get is that Michael Moore does not tell you what to
>think.
Yeah, sure he doesn't. You are simply too stupid to
see leftwing propaganda when it's shoved in your face.
Bob
in TODD we trust wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:45:28 GMT, Richard <rande...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >Carville is a loud, slimy, dictatorial Liberal one step
> >up from his hick Southern backwater roots.
> >-Rich
>
> And you aren't qualified to wipe his ass.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Todd "okay... that was mean" McNeeley
> .
>
Accurate, of course, but yes, mean.
Isn't life hell for some people when accuracy is mean. ( DAMN, I had to
type "mean" three times to get it right. I will once again claim that I
have digital dyslexia.)
Bob
Dawn Taylor
Richard wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 02:13:41 -0400, in TODD we trust
> <nu...@myserver.com> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:32:15 -0500, mikah <mi...@nospam4me.invalid>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>> From: Richard (Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:45:28 GMT)
> >>> MsgId: <vtbuqugo9k0eptr4c...@4ax.com>
> >>>
> >>> Carville is a loud, slimy, dictatorial Liberal one step
> >>> up from his hick Southern backwater roots.
> >>
> >>And yet, he gets invited to Universities to lecture, and you get put on
> >>Usenet kill filters. Wotta World.
> >
> >You are too cool! :-)
> >
> >Cheers,
>
> Yes, he does get invited to universities to lecture. But
> university students and professors have always shown a
> penchant for listening to the dronings of left-wing ravers.
Yes, yes. Education is a terrible thing. Every single college is a hotbed of
commie pinko liberalism. Kind of makes you wonder about all the hardline
right-wingers who graduated from Ivy League schools, though.
>
> Are you going to mention Carville's name in association with
> some of the socialist terrorists who have been invited from
> time to time to lecture at the more radical universities
> in the U.S.?
Or the industrialists? Or the Republican state senators? Or the Nobel Prize
winners?
And which are "the most radical universities in the U.S.." Rich? I dare you
to come up with an answer that doesn't include the retro-cliche "Berkeley."
>
> My worst nightmare would be to have that hyena as president.
> Good thing that will never happen.
Good thing Moore isn't Canadian.
Dawn
(do you ever bother to form opinions about your *own* country's politics?)
Kevin FilmNutBoy
Sure, there's racism almost everywhere where there's more than one race,
unfortunately. Moore's skit (and I think "skit" is the best word to use) is a
clever reminder of that (though, because it's a staged skit, it doesn't really
qualify as proof or even reliable evidence of racism, which is my point).
However, blaming the taxi cab problem on racism is a simplistic and misleading
explanation -- other factors, like crime, class, etc., play a major role, but
you know that and I know that, so we'll leave it at that.
>>Moore isn't an objective documentarian, out to discover the truth with his
>>camera.
>
>Who is? You know better than this.
When I say Moore isn't an objective documentarian, I'm not implying that the
other guys are, I'm just countering the notion that he's out there getting the
"truth." As our mentor Dr. Lafferty says, "there's no such thing as a
documentary."
>Cheers,
>
>Todd "a huge fan of future President Moore" McNeeley
A rhetorical question: after a Michael Moore presidency, would Bono plead with
Third World countries to help the US out of the resulting economic quaqmire?
P.S. Since Moore would probably legalize pot, I'd vote for him anyway. You
gotta have priorities.
--Kevin
Derek Janssen
>
> Is it just me, or are there more right wing nutballs in this newsgroup
> than there actually are in the world? Somebody's gotta be fakin it.
...NAHHHHHHHHH.
Derek Janssen (hey, didn't you hear? This's the Internet!--EVERYONE
speaks their 100% genuine mind and opinion, every hour of the day)
dja...@rcn.com
Derek Janssen
>
> However, blaming the taxi cab problem on racism is a simplistic and misleading
> explanation -- other factors, like crime, class, etc., play a major role, but
> you know that and I know that, so we'll leave it at that.
And, continuing in his "Mention Canada and you always get a laugh"
tradition (what IS it with you and that, anyway, Mike?), there was the
TV Nation "skit" where he compared Mexican border-patrol footage with
"hilariously" uneventful attempts to get caught sneaking across the
one-guy-in-a-toll-booth Canadian border.
Moral a la Moore: "Why are the Mexican borders defended with rifles
when the Canadian borders aren't? Could it beeeeeee.......RACISM????"
(Uh, just out of curiosity, have we tried, "Generally speaking, most
Canadians don't *want* to sneak into the US?")
Derek Janssen (again, parsimony--The principle of logic)
dja...@rcn.com
Vern
> On 18 Oct 2002 01:44:33 -0700, outla...@hotmail.com (Vern) wrote:
>
> >Is it just me, or are there more right wing nutballs in this newsgroup
> >than there actually are in the world? Somebody's gotta be fakin it.
> >
> >Anyway, I saw this movie tonight and it was incredible. I agree that
> >it is a must see, whether or not you agree with Michael Moore's
> >politics. I have seen some negative reviews and what these people
> >don't seem to get is that Michael Moore does not tell you what to
> >think.
>
> Yeah, sure he doesn't. You are simply too stupid to
> see leftwing propaganda when it's shoved in your face.
> -Rich
Actually, and by the way before I forget you are a huge fuckin
asshole, this movie was not shoved in my face. I actually waited in
line to see it and was looking forward to seeing it.
Since you obviously haven't seen the movie and don't even know
anything about it, your post is the propaganda. Stop shoving it my
face you asshole who just called me stupid unprompted.
Fuck you,
Vern
fuck off
http://www.geocities.com/outlawvern
p.s. I miss Alex Crouvier. He was crazy in a humorous way, instead of
just a loony asshole.
The One and Only Billy Shears
I'm a Florida resident (Duval County, where thousands of votes were
thrown out as "nonvotes" in the 2000 fiasco), so I'm "living the
nightmare". The gubernatorial primary earlier this year was frought
with incompetence by poll workers and at least one supervisor of
elections, and the governor's race looks to be very close. The one
consolation is that Jim Smith, the current Secretary of State (and a
Republican and a longtime figure in Florida politics), seems to be
trying to run this election on the up and up, unlike Katherine
"Freezin' for a Reason" Harris. Of course, I could be living in
Sarasota and end up with Katherine Harris as my Congress-critter...
Speaking of Katherine Harris, I guess belief in "divine right of
kings" can be rewarded with a congressional seat, if you know the
right people... Didn't I spot her in the jury in "The Devil and
Daniel Webster"? :-)
The One and Only Billy Shears
<nu...@myserver.com> wrote:
>On 16 Oct 2002 06:07:57 GMT, filmn...@aol.commode (Kevin FilmNutBoy)
>wrote:
>
>
>>>Well, it depends on what you mean by "touches upon with any depth." My take
>>>on it was that it was dispelling illusions whites have - "it's not so bad."
>>>That is, many people had heard the complaints, but didn't really get the
>>>extent and absurdity of it.
>>>
>>>In other words, it was an education issue; not an exploration of blacks
>>>being passed up by cabbies but an illustration of the problem in a way that
>>>it couldn't be denied or glossed over.
>>
>>Moore isn't an objective documentarian, out to discover the truth with his
>>camera.
>
>Who is? You know better than this. I'm certain you've taken the
>classes. If you want facts, watch Nova. Great documentary filmmaking
>can also be about presenting a point of view. It's another form of
>storytelling.
Still, many episodes of "Nova" (or analogous documentary shows across
the dial) try to persuade the audience to adopt a particular point of
view or perspective on the subject. So do most of the big names in
documentary features -- Barbara Kopple's "Harlan County, USA" wasn't
totally objective, neither were "Hoop Dreams" or "The War Room" or
"When We Were Kings" . Same goes for Ed Murrow's great documentary
work on CBS (the "See It Now" broadcast on McCarthy or "Harvest of
Shame") or Bill Moyers's classic PBS piece on the Iran-Contra affair.
Michael Moore, OTOH, uses documentary techniques for satirical and
persuasive purposes. There are grains of truth, and maybe even
truckloads of truth, in Moore's films, but I don't think Moore
believes that his audiences have any illusions about what they're
getting. It's sort of like the difference between "commentator" and
"reporter" -- Moore is using some facts (and deliberately downplaying
or downright ignoring others) to make an audience feel a certain way
-- usually he wants his audience to laugh at the absurdity of "the
other side". Other times he'll use political theatre straight out of
Saul Alinsky -- a good example was the TVNation sketch with Moore and
a group of ex-smokers who lost their voiceboxes Christmas caroling at
corporate HQ for one of the big tobacco companies. In any case, I
don't think anybody expects a straight down the middle, exhaustive
exploration of the subject matter presented. I doubt anybody went
into any of Moore's films expecting a valentine to Corporate America
(tm) or The Establishment (tm). Storyteller, yes, but more of a
rabble-rouser and a satirist.
>
>>He's a video essayist, and he concocts scenarios that will illustrate
>>opinions that he held before the cameras rolled. There's nothing inherently
>>wrong with this approach, as long as the viewer is saavy to what's going on.
>
>A video essayist might also be known by their more common name,
>documentary filmmaker. And the responsibility of being savvy is on the
>viewer, not the filmmaker.
Yeah, but I think Moore is mostly a satirist and rabble rouser.
There's a pretty big difference between what he does and what Barbara
Kopple, D. A. Pennebaker, and Errol Morris do.
Tom Cervo
>There's a pretty big difference between what he does and what Barbara
>Kopple, D. A. Pennebaker, and Errol Morris do.
You don't think "The Thin Blue Line" was meant to raise the rabble? In the
right way, of course, but it makes Moore's work look like feed from a security
cam in terms of "selection".
But even a security cam is pointed in one direction only. Even that thing of
Warhol's ("Sleep"?) failed to show everything else that was going on in that
room. The idea of documentary being an "unbiased" take on anything is naive.
The One and Only Billy Shears
"Tom Cervo" <tomc...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021019100956...@mb-mg.aol.com...
> >Yeah, but I think Moore is mostly a satirist and rabble rouser.
> >There's a pretty big difference between what he does and what Barbara
> >Kopple, D. A. Pennebaker, and Errol Morris do.
>
> You don't think "The Thin Blue Line" was meant to raise the rabble? In the
> right way, of course, but it makes Moore's work look like feed from a
security
> cam in terms of "selection".
Maybe my use of Morris wasn't a good selection here; both "Thin Blue Line"
and "Mr. Death" want to rouse the rabble. "Vernon, Florida", "Gates of
Heaven", and "A Brief History of Time" were more of what I had in mind
originally -- they're not calls to action or the cinematic equivalent of
Jonathan Swift, instead, they're more of a mirror.
> But even a security cam is pointed in one direction only. Even that thing
of
> Warhol's ("Sleep"?) failed to show everything else that was going on in
that
> room. The idea of documentary being an "unbiased" take on anything is
naive.
Absolutely.
RogerM
>
> > From: Richard (Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:45:28 GMT)
> > MsgId: <vtbuqugo9k0eptr4c...@4ax.com>
> >
> > up from his hick Southern backwater roots.
>
> Usenet kill filters. Wotta World.
Well, a lot of people get paid to tell people what they want to hear. Rich tends to write
things no one wants to read.
--
WARNING: The above message likely contains one or more generalizations.
Please do not attempt to disprove them with isolated exceptions.
"What? It IS personal! HE'S GOT OUR UNDERPANTS!" - Alec Baldwin
"We're wasting more energy than Ricky Martin's girlfriend." - Groundskeeper Willie
"Ooh, a sarcasm detector. Now THERE'S a useful invention." - Comic Book Guy
Carl: "Let's make litter out of those literati!"
Lenny: "That's too clever! YOU'RE ONE OF THEM!"
in TODD we trust
wrote:
>>It was a clever illustration of a very real problem. We live in a
>>society where many actually believe racism is over. It isn't. It is
>>deep and ingrained and institutionalized. Denying that is... is...
>>well... immoral, if not just plain blind.
>
>Sure, there's racism almost everywhere where there's more than one race,
>unfortunately. Moore's skit (and I think "skit" is the best word to use) is a
>clever reminder of that (though, because it's a staged skit, it doesn't really
>qualify as proof or even reliable evidence of racism, which is my point).
You are right of course, that the Yaphett Koto bit was not documentary
filmmaking. The TV Nation stuff all falls better into parody or satire
or whatever...
But Roger and Me is, and I imagine (though I haven't seen it yet)
Bowling is truly worthy of being called a documentary, despite both
being very subjective.
>However, blaming the taxi cab problem on racism is a simplistic and misleading
>explanation -- other factors, like crime, class, etc., play a major role, but
>you know that and I know that, so we'll leave it at that.
I drove a cab for three years. Racism is a perfectly valid
explanation.
>>>Moore isn't an objective documentarian, out to discover the truth with his
>>>camera.
>>
>>Who is? You know better than this.
>
>When I say Moore isn't an objective documentarian, I'm not implying that the
>other guys are, I'm just countering the notion that he's out there getting the
>"truth." As our mentor Dr. Lafferty says, "there's no such thing as a
>documentary."
He would likely be right :-)
>>Cheers,
>>
>>Todd "a huge fan of future President Moore" McNeeley
>
>A rhetorical question: after a Michael Moore presidency, would Bono plead with
>Third World countries to help the US out of the resulting economic quaqmire?
He would lead the strongest economy in history.
>P.S. Since Moore would probably legalize pot, I'd vote for him anyway. You
>gotta have priorities.
Because the tax revenues generated from legalization would wipe out
the deficit, and the new legal pot industry would revitalize the
economy.
Plus, the new 15 hour work week would be great :-)
Cheers,
Todd "I work my 15 hours on Tuesday" McNeeley
Panic
I feel for you.
> The gubernatorial primary earlier this year was frought
> with incompetence by poll workers and at least one supervisor of
> elections, and the governor's race looks to be very close.
The Gubernatorial Primary in Florida was ridiculous. It was almost as
screwed up as the Presidential elections were 2 years earlier, in the same
state. What's worse, is that this was supposed to be the "new and
improved" system. Isn't it odd that the screw ups always seem to work in
favor of the Republican party?
> The one
> consolation is that Jim Smith, the current Secretary of State (and a
> Republican and a longtime figure in Florida politics), seems to be
> trying to run this election on the up and up, unlike Katherine
> "Freezin' for a Reason" Harris. Of course, I could be living in
> Sarasota and end up with Katherine Harris as my Congress-critter...
That woman should be in jail, and instead she'll probably be in Congress.
What a twisted world. With the Bush's, it's definitely, "you pat my back,
I'll pat yours ... and then give you a massage, with lube."
> Speaking of Katherine Harris, I guess belief in "divine right of
> kings" can be rewarded with a congressional seat, if you know the
> right people...
That's just what I was saying. I really should read through these messages
before I reply to them.
> Didn't I spot her in the jury in "The Devil and
> Daniel Webster"? :-)
Wasn't that film also known as, "All That Money Can Buy?"
If the shoe fits ...
Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"Like a phone that never stops ringing at 3 AM."
Panic
news:2d50ru0lpblji6l5g...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 18 Oct 2002 02:13:41 -0400, in TODD we trust
> <nu...@myserver.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 17 Oct 2002 23:32:15 -0500, mikah <mi...@nospam4me.invalid>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>> From: Richard (Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:45:28 GMT)
>>>> MsgId: <vtbuqugo9k0eptr4c...@4ax.com>
>>>>
>>>> Carville is a loud, slimy, dictatorial Liberal one step
>>>> up from his hick Southern backwater roots.
>>>
>>>And yet, he gets invited to Universities to lecture, and you get put on
>>>Usenet kill filters. Wotta World.
>>
>>You are too cool! :-)
>>
>>Cheers,
>
> Yes, he does get invited to universities to lecture. But
> university students and professors have always shown a
> penchant for listening to the dronings of left-wing ravers.
> Are you going to mention Carville's name in association with
> some of the socialist terrorists who have been invited from
> time to time to lecture at the more radical universities
> in the U.S.?
Again, I ask: what is wrong with Socialism, in theory? I would also like
to ask who these alleged socialist "terrorists" are, and what makes you
accuse them of being A. socialist and B. terrorist?
Yes, Rich, I realize you absolutely refuse to answer questions that may
actually cause you to think, but I continue asking, all the same.
Panic
news:4k50ruou1621hvbml...@4ax.com:
> On 18 Oct 2002 01:44:33 -0700, outla...@hotmail.com (Vern) wrote:
>
>>Is it just me, or are there more right wing nutballs in this newsgroup
>>than there actually are in the world? Somebody's gotta be fakin it.
>>
>>Anyway, I saw this movie tonight and it was incredible. I agree that
>>it is a must see, whether or not you agree with Michael Moore's
>>politics. I have seen some negative reviews and what these people
>>don't seem to get is that Michael Moore does not tell you what to
>>think.
>
> Yeah, sure he doesn't. You are simply too stupid to
> see leftwing propaganda when it's shoved in your face.
> -Rich
I bet he's actually capable of backing up his opinions, unlike you, Rich.
Panic
> mikah wrote:
>>
>> > From: Richard (Thu, 17 Oct 2002 21:45:28 GMT)
>> > MsgId: <vtbuqugo9k0eptr4c...@4ax.com>
>> >
>> > Carville is a loud, slimy, dictatorial Liberal one step
>> > up from his hick Southern backwater roots.
>>
>> And yet, he gets invited to Universities to lecture, and you get put
>> on Usenet kill filters. Wotta World.
>
> Well, a lot of people get paid to tell people what they want to hear.
> Rich tends to write things no one wants to read.
And that's probably why he isn't making a cent.
I wonder if he could get people to pay him to shut up?
DMaul1999
>Again, I ask: what is wrong with Socialism, in theory? I would also like
>to ask who these alleged socialist "terrorists" are, and what makes you
>accuse them of being A. socialist and B. terrorist?
Why even bother with this retarded question. According to your own admission,
socialism doesn't work. So what's wrong with being a socialist? If that
question needs to be answered, you need to go back to first grade and start the
whole process over again b/c there is something you missed.
DMaul1999
>>>Anyway, I saw this movie tonight and it was incredible. I agree that
>>>it is a must see, whether or not you agree with Michael Moore's
>>>politics. I have seen some negative reviews and what these people
>>>don't seem to get is that Michael Moore does not tell you what to
>>>think.
Yes he does. Why are people so dense? The whole movie (not documentary) is
designed to tell you what to think. The knocking on the door bit, the editing,
etc. Right wing or left wing...both are stupid points of view. Here is a
hint...most americans are moderates (except California, New York, and
Florida...they live in their own little world) :-)
Panic
news:20021020192756...@mb-me.aol.com:
>
>>Again, I ask: what is wrong with Socialism, in theory? I would also
>>like to ask who these alleged socialist "terrorists" are, and what
>>makes you accuse them of being A. socialist and B. terrorist?
>
> Why even bother with this retarded question. According to your own
> admission, socialism doesn't work.
When did I make that admission?
And is your name Rich?
Love,
me
http://www.juicycerebellum.com
"Samsung sucks like an old lady eating her chicken noodle."
Panic
news:20021020193356...@mb-me.aol.com:
You're forgetting a lot of the states in the deep south. They are way to
the right of moderate.
RogerM
Does capitalism work?
Giftzwerg
> > >Again, I ask: what is wrong with Socialism, in theory? I would also like
> > >to ask who these alleged socialist "terrorists" are, and what makes you
> > >accuse them of being A. socialist and B. terrorist?
> >
> > Why even bother with this retarded question. According to your own admission,
> > socialism doesn't work. So what's wrong with being a socialist? If that
> > question needs to be answered, you need to go back to first grade and start the
> > whole process over again b/c there is something you missed.
>
> Does capitalism work?
Did you cash your paycheck last week?
--
Giftzwerg
***
"Once again, Barbra Streisand has opened her
alligator-sized mouth before her hummingbird
brain has a chance to catch up."
- R. Lee Ermy
RogerM
>
> In article <3DB415FF...@sprint.ca>, rog...@sprint.ca says...
>
> > > >Again, I ask: what is wrong with Socialism, in theory? I would also like
> > > >to ask who these alleged socialist "terrorists" are, and what makes you
> > > >accuse them of being A. socialist and B. terrorist?
> > >
> > > Why even bother with this retarded question. According to your own admission,
> > > socialism doesn't work. So what's wrong with being a socialist? If that
> > > question needs to be answered, you need to go back to first grade and start the
> > > whole process over again b/c there is something you missed.
> >
> > Does capitalism work?
>
> Did you cash your paycheck last week?
>
No. The door to the bank was blocked by homeless people.