Comments (16)

  1. Before you go watch F9/11 you should at least enlighten yourself to the way Michael Moore twists the facts in almost unbelievable ways. I liked Bowling and walked away wondering what all the fuss was about. Then I started reading the truth behind the documentary which he personally admitted was more showmanship than anything.

  2. Reflector: Wow, that is awful presumptious

  3. I hate to remove comments. I really do. Generally, I don’t remove comments from my blog unless a)the comment is blatantly offensive, b)includes a link to something that is blatantly offensive, or c)somebody flames somebody else without identifying themselves.

    But in this case, an unidentified reader from what appears to be Victoria, British Columbia referred to the writer of the previous comment as a "fool". IMO, doing so was nominally offensive and absolutely gutless. Comment deleted.

    M. Keith Warren, Michael Moore, and I might not agree on everything but I certainly respect them for standing up for their beliefs.

  4. Korby: Your a good man

  5. Joe Armstrong says:

    It is amazing how scared conservatives are of this movie. I’ve yet to see anybody refute anything that is in it, because, well, gee, basically no one has seen it yet 🙂

    Kudos to you Korby for doing your civic duty by becoming more informed of your choices next November.

  6. Joe: As a real life conservative and charter member of the vast right wing conspiracy 🙂 I have to correct you on something. Nobody is scared about this movie; we are bothered by the fact that the media has given credence to a man who makes movies that are more fiction than reality yet cloaks them in the genre of documentary. I believe that most people in this country are genuinely smart and would see a movie like this knowing full well that the director has a political agenda he is trying to assert through film. We in this country are used to it now; we see it everyday in the major media.

    Frankly there are a lot of things in the movie (our Saudi relations) that we need to have a serious public debate about. In light of today’s tragic events in that country I think it is time for fresh discussions about our policies with and in regard to the House of Saud. I was bothered early this week by an NBC video which showed the Crown Prince speaking recently to a group in Arabic saying that the entire problem of terrorism was the fault of the Zionists. This doublespeak and overt anti-Semitism is problematic. Michael Moore has been pointing a finger at Bush connections to the royal family but we have to realize that our policies towards Saudi Arabia have not changed since before W took office so they are long standing and may need some evaluation.

    I have a hope deep in my heart that Michael Moore is a good person that wants what is best for America; I want to believe that about all people. The truth is though; we do have people in this country that would prefer a Marxist like, Socialist approach to central planning. Michael Moore is one of those people and while I will spend my life opposing that view, I would just as well spend it defending his right to have that view. I believe that we as a country are a great experiment in personal freedom and unfortunately we are giving more and more of ourselves over to central planning and governance through an elitist representation which has become more entwined in the craft of politics and has forgotten about the art of representation. We have substituted true representation for ambassadors who we enlist to bring tax dollars back to our communities in the form of federal spending on often frivolous local projects. Mr. Moore’s views are contrarian to the principles I and most conservatives espouse…that the best model is one of less government, less central planning and more reliance on personal freedoms and the dynamics of free people in a free market society. These principles have created the greatest country in the history of the world and eroding this foundation and replacing it with a system of big government and central control is a recipe that will ultimately tear down this great empire of ideas…

    Long live Michael Moore’s right to make movies blasting our leaders.

    Long live my right to say he is wrong.

  7. Rich Knox says:

    I would be critical of Michael Moore’s biases and exaggerations were it not for one thing. Rush Limbaugh. If the right gets to have Rush, then the left gets Michael. One of the greatest weaknesses of liberals is tolerance and a willingness to see both sides of an issue. The kind of nuanced approach to the issues that John Kerry is so frequently criticized for. But liberals are learning that’s not how the game is played.

  8. Joe Armstrong says:

    Keith,

    I appreciate your comments, but I have to disagree that Moore is some kind of socialist just because he fights injustice.

    One thing to realize about the Holy Market is that it is only free because of government laws (and enforcement) that protect against forces that would cause it go away, like monopolies. The market can’t protect itself against manipulation, which is what we saw with Enron. Without enforcement of those laws (which is something the Bush administration seems to only do reluctantly, or when it is politcally required to do so), the free market goes away.

    Another thing to keep in mind is that if it weren’t for fair labor laws and unions (that happened only because many people were willing to risk their lives against the powers of the time), there would be no middle class today, and not much properity beyond any other country today that has only super rich upper class and masses of poor people. It isn’t socialist to want justice and fairness, or a strong enough government to counteract the true ruling elite just adding more to their bottom line (something we also get more and more of from the Bush administration).

    Michael Moore simply reveals the excesses of the ruling elite and shows them for what they are. Nothing wrong with that, unless you are a member of the ruling elite…

    I do appreciate your civil tone in this debate – that is so hard to come by these days…

  9. Joe,

    I dont disagree with what you said there, I certainly believe that a measure of oversight is required in order to maintain fairness in a world (or market) where there are unscrupulous people like Andy Fastow. I dont fault Michael Moore for that and actually think it is pretty funny when he put these people’s dirty laundry out to air…I just think he could achieve the same goals without twisting the facts for the effect of drama. I guess that is what it takes to get accepted in Hollywood so that you get your message out through film.

    Rich,

    You compared Rush to Moore which I find unfair. Michael Moore represents what I consider an extremist faction of the democrat party, he is not mainstream liberal but way to the left of the party. Rush represents the majority view of many conservatives although some of this views might swing out of bounds I think he is more in line with the GOP than Moore with the Dems. If you want to know the right’s poster boy in that area that deserves a Moore comparison, it is probably Michael Savage.

    Korby,

    Sorry we are holding a town hall meeting in your blog 🙂

  10. T.K. Alvarez says:

    After the Bush/Ashcroft justice department ended the Clinton/Reno antitrust case, I find it surprising that Microsoft’s employees would be promoting an anti-Bush movie.

  11. cleve says:

    Though Moore uses a blatant sense of hyperbole at times, I do not think he is even comparable to conservative talking heads and radio personalities in that they tend to make emotional appeals to concepts that anyone can get (or hide) behind rather than providing at lesast some kind of documentation on the sources that make up their perspective. I can’t count the times I’ve heard Rush, Bill O’Rielly, Michael Savage, Neil Boortz, or Sean Hannity cut off callers before they can utter but a few words and then twist their arguments back on them by calling them unamerican…I’m not saying Michael Moore has all of his facts straight, but most or all of them are verifiable through independent sources. I am a member of a profession that calls for discourse – not just conversation or debate, but discourse – that is, bringing a perspective to the table then letting it go to build upon or deconstruct. What I have seen is that the conservative elements of the media are absolutely frightened to death of ANY deconstruction…Anyone who won’t admit that they are wrong probably is…in any case, I hope this random comment adds to the discourse on this table…