The only thing new about a politically-oriented speech being given on the Oscars is the degree of hostility with which such endeavors are met in this country.
One would think that spirited discussion of the current state of affairs would be greeted with an air of appreciation that we live in a country where such things are not only accepted, but encouraged and protected by our Founding Fathers. But no. Opposition instead is drawn in the most stark and distorted of terms: If you’re opposed to Bush’s actions, you’re in favor of dictators. If you’re opposed to the war, you’re against the soldiers risking their lives. And heaven help anyone in the entertainment industry who speaks out: They’re risking watching their livelihood spiral down the drain.
What a shame we don’t live in a country where criticism of the government carries stiff penalties. Where the citizens know better than to speak out. Where the residents fall into line…or else. A country like…I dunno…Iraq.
PAD
• 
Given Mike Moore’s comments about working with Canadians. I’m currious to know what US citizens think about Canada siting out of this war. I personally appreciate the fact that the government of Canada stands on the side of international consensus and diplomacy. They stand in good company, with France, Germany and even the Pope. And after all this is the process that brought us the Geneva Convention – the very convention Bush is presently appealing to for the sake of American POW’s. Forget about citicism of a government carrying stiff penalties – watch what happens in Canada – just for not agreeing with anouther goverment (I really can’t call what they are saying now criticism of the US). Bush visits in May – set your VCR’s. Thanks for listening to my rant – Your Thoughts…
“I’m curious. Where did Michael Moore out and out lie in Bowling For Columbine? Please supply source material for your argument.”
Mispresentation of times and dates and even purposes of events is not called truth. It is lying.
Source material for my argument? I’ve been doing that for the past two days! Try looking here: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
“Bowling for Columbine contains a sequence filmed at the Lockheed-Martin manufacturing facility, near Columbine. Moore interviews a PR fellow, shows missiles being built, and then asks whether knowledge that weapons of mass destruction were being built nearby might have motivated the Columbine shooters in committing their own mass slaying. After all, if their father worked on the missiles, ‘What’s the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?’ Moore intones that the missiles with their ‘Pentagon payloads’ are trucked through the town ‘in the middle of the night while the children are asleep.’
“Soon after Bowling was released someone checked out the claim, and found that the Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes rockets for launching satellites.”
Micheal Moore lied. Micheal Moore spouted fiction. Therefore it’s not a documentary because this isn’t nonfiction. Well, that’s no longer the point, is it? It’s about lying. Okay.
“Bowling continues its theme by juxtaposing another Heston speech with a school shooting at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint, making the claim that right after the shooting, NRA came to the locale to stage a defiant rally. In Moore’s words, ‘Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally.'”
Moore was telling lies.
“Fact: Heston’s speech was given at a ‘get out the vote’ rally in Flint, which rally was held when elections rolled around some eight months after the shooting.
“Fact: Moore should remember. On the same day, Moore himself was hosting a similar rally in Flint, for the Green Party.”
Want more? “Bowling depicts the juvenile shooter as a sympathetic youngster who just found a gun in his uncle’s house and took it to school. ‘No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl.’
“Fact: The little boy was the class bully, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife.”
“Fact: The uncle’s house was the neighborhood crack-house. The uncle (together with the shooter’s father, then serving a prison term for theft and cocaine possession, and his aunt and maternal grandmother) earned their living off drug dealing. The gun was stolen by one of the uncle’s customers and purchased by him in exchange for drugs.”
That is dishonest. That is outright right.
From http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233
“In print, too, Mr. Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. In his ‘Stupid White Men,’ his best-selling book, he blithely states that five-sixths of the U.S. defense budget in 2001 went toward the construction of a single type of plane and that two-thirds of the $190 million that President Bush raised in his 2000 campaign came from just over 700 individuals, a preposterous assertion given that the limit for individual contributions at the time was $1,000.
“When CNN’s Lou Dobbs asked Mr. Moore about his inaccuracies, he shrugged off the quesiton. ‘You know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don’t respond to that sort of stuff, you know,’ he said.
“‘Glaring inaccuracies?’ Mr. Dobbs said.
“‘No, I don’t. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?'”
Those words seem contrary to what he told reporters after he won his Academy Award: http://mfile.akamai.com/8629/asf/clips.download.akamai.com/8629/DocumentaryFeature2_100k.asx
Between minutes 9 and 11 Moore declares his latest book a work of nonfiction, which isn’t what he said before on freaking CNN. He talks of his responsibility when earlier he denied responsibility.
Can you prove to me that this man consistently tells the truth? Or does every fact need to be checked?
PAD wrote:
>The only thing new about a
>politically-oriented speech being
>given on the Oscars is the degree
>of hostility with which such
>endeavors are met in this
>country.
You seem to be ignoring the right of people to voice their opinions against the crap that Michael Moore was spewing. Moore got his chance (although I don’t think the venue was appropriate) to say what he wanted so why can’t people, who disagree with him, get their chance to voice their opinion? It seems the right to free speech only applies to liberals and those who have other opinions get attacked.
I’m not annoyed by whether a Liberal or Conservative has something to say. Really, I think you (PAD) object to as much Conservative speech as anybody else objects to Liberal speech. Yes, I see both sides as hypocrites. Earlier today I turned off Fox News when Bill O’Reilly said he wasn’t biased, for example. What annoys me is the lack of intelligence characterizing political speech in this country, on both sides. It always degrades into an annoying trading of insults. The worst on the Internet is when somebody takes an honest expression of opinion and picks it apart line-by-line (typically using a number of logical flaws to degrade the post) in order to show that their mindset makes them superior to those that they disagree with. Any response is met with rude attacks on the person. Both Liberals and Conservatives do this, and they are BOTH annoying. I suppose they have the right to do that too, but that doesn’t make me like it.
PAD wrote:
>Booing is not the same. Booing is
>the utilizing of the “Heckler’s
>Veto.” The attempt not to meet
>free speech with free speech, but
>instead the endeavor to stop the
>other person from speaking
>entirely.
So, if one disagrees then they must remain quiet? But I guess the cheering is okay (especially since they mirror your own thoughts on the subject matter).
Give me a break PAD. It’s OK for Moore to criticize Bush, but it’s not OK to criticize Moore? According to what logic? What hostility are you talking about? Moore’s speech was violent and rude in an evening that was about entertainment and glitz. He was as hostile as they come. From the people who attacked him back, none came off as rude and hostile as he did.
And note that nobody took that man’s freedom of speech. He said what he wanted to, it got reprinted in all the papers… So how exactly was he silenced? Or are you perhaps requesting that anti-war/anti-Bush people will get the right to express their opinions without anyone challenging them?
I’m disappointed, Peter. I really am.
Ibrahim, freedom of speech does include the right to tell someone to shut up, as long as that’s all you do. And as part as freedom of speech you can tell someone that he shouldn’t say stuff like that. You see? It’s quite nice.
And I love it how there were no right wing celebrities speaking out at the Oscars. Don’t delude yourself that they don’t exist. It’s just that there’s a definite Mccarthism in the entertainment idustry. It’s trendy to say left wing stuff in Hollywood, but just try to be different…
PAD, do you really think that a guy saying “Go Bush! Let’s go get the bad guys!” wouldn’t have been booed by some of the people in the crowd, or is booing a rightist tendency?
And my two cents on boycotting: For me it’s a personal thing. I disagree with you on a lot of things, but I still buy your comics because they’re fun and I know that you’re a good guy with good intentions.
When it comes to people like Moore, he’s so obnoxious I can’t even look at him, so that’s one factor to stay away. When the manner and the extremity of which some people deliver their views simply makes it impossible for me to enjoy anything they do without thinking about their political aspects.
Organizing boycotts is silly, and usually pointless. But at this times of war, I can see how some people may misdirect their energies in frustration.
Nobody boycotted recently has went bankrupt yet, last time I checked.
Hi Peter,
I totally agree with you and I thank you for talking about that even though there are lots of comments critizing it. My problem with the whole issue is, my parents travelled a lot and so did I. I lived not only in the US, but also in UK, in Germany and for a short time in France. I can read and watch news in German and in French, too – and from all countries I’m most impressed with the journalism on one particular German station called ZDF. They don’t take sides in the war, but they very critically report what they can learn from Arab as well as American stations and international journalists partially embedded in the Army. It’s most interesting to compare that US and UK are the only big countries supporting the war, whereas many other countries world-wide say, the attack of US against Iraq is a breach of the UN charta article 4 (saying, you’re only allowed to attack another country if it either attacked you first or if you have prove it is preparing an attack against you). It is against international law to attack Iraq to force it to disarm. You can critize it – and many people do, saying how else could you disarm Iraq when not using force? But fact is, it’s a breach of international law – and the problem lots of international media address is, how countries can act united in the future, when the US insists on having the right to wage war even outside the UN charta.
Another problem often addressed in international media is, that our friends and relatives who’re down there fighting aren’t facing a hostile army, but women, children and innocent men, that just try to do what they think would be best for their country – you have to bear in mind, they were under foreign rule just as Americans were up to 1776. They don’t want to let that happen again, even though they don’t like Saddam, they love their country.
Many countries (Russia, Germany, France, Japan and so on, about 250 countries are opposing the US attack of Iraq) say, it would be better to avoid war and to apply other means. After all, when the Iraqian people are dead, it’s hard to free them.
I don’t want to hurt anybody’s feeling. I have great respect for everybody who, sometimes against better judgement, went down to Iraq to serve our government. But after all we’re living in a democracy, and thus, we have the right to say we’re against war – the freedom to do that is the freedom our fathers fought for and it is the reason why the United States are the oldest democracy in the world and our soldiers can be proud to fight for it.
cu,
Tom.
I can’t say I’ve ever watched any of Michael Moore’s documentaries, but now, after how blatantly he spoke on Oscar night, I think I’ll be avoiding him altogether, just like Vanessa Redgrave. He didn’t have to talk like that, and I don’t think anybody was forcing him to either, and he KNOWS that he didn’t have to talk like that.
First, you don’t have to be a member of the Academy to get nominated or win an Oscar. You’ll probably get invited if you win. So don’t assume Moore is attacking his own academy–we’d need more facts on that!
I have a theory on the conservative bashing of celebs/ Hollywood. The conservatives have taken political power and dominate that forum. they’ve taken over radio. The news media has been totally cowed–between corporation ownership in fewer hands (some quite right wing like Murdoch), the reporters who drool at the chance to wear khaki and the White House press corps who fear being cut off from all access by Ari Fleisher, you rarely get any hard questions on any other subject anymore! With all those fields controlled by the neo-conservatives, the only people who still have access to the press are celebs. And since the right has little control over what celebs say, they belittle them, marginalize them, insult them (the NY POST is famous for rude fat comments about Garalfolo, Baldwin and Bill) and, if all that doesn’t work, they organize boycotts through newsletters and radio shows. The new right is all about controlling the message, and if you’re not part of the message, you better shut up or face their wrath!
Of course the new US policy is filled with bullying tactics. Look how the new right handles any dissent!
Gordon,paranoid much? Are the evil rightists are out to get you and silence you forever? Poor Moore who got an Oscar and his speech reprinted all over the world should get sympathy exactly why?
There are rightist elements in a media that is mostly leftist. Live with it.
From Moore’s website.
“Support the Dixie Chicks: call country music radio stations and keep requesting their songs”
So if it’s immoral to boycott someone for their political views, is it then immoral to support them because of that?… How is that different?
On the same logic, why people can cheer Moore, but not boo him? Both are ways to express your opinion about what he says.
“If and when the DC’s songs are played on the radio it isn’t an example of free speech. What gets aired on the radio is a personal and business decision and has little do with vast abstract principles.”
On the contrary. It can indeed be about free speech. “What they said is not politically correct and we don’t want to be seen supporting that, so we’ll stop giving them air time.” Sorry, but when you’re in the entertainment industry and have spent years honing talent and practicing your shtick, seeing someone get yanked off the air for saying something is one very powerful incentive for you to shut up. Can you say “indirect coercion”?
Also, many of the people criticising the comment the DC lead made make a common mistake. They confuse the office of the Presidency which should get respect, with the person who occupies it, who needs to earn it. Or does anyone think Nixon was worthy of respect?
“Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes rockets for launching satellites.”
Hey, Billy-Joe-Bob, take out that comsat and put in a 20megaton warhead instead would you? Thanks.
Remember that the missiles used to launch the early space capsules and satellites were actually ICBMs used for another task? That the Titan missiles which put satellites up now can just as easily deliver a nuclear payload to downtown Beijing?
“Fact: The little boy was the class bully, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife.”
We must have seen a different film. What I came away with was not that the kid was a little angel, but that he had been forced to live away from his mother by a screwed-up system and that this is what contributed to the tragedy. A tragedy which probably would not have occured if he had not been forced to stay at his uncle’s.
PAD wrote:
“Well, I don’t boycott Domino’s Pizza, if that’s what you mean. I’m just not a big believer in punishing someone financially because I differ with their opinions. Frankly, I don’t comprehend why anyone would.”
Okay, then… what about your “personal boycott” (your words, from BID) of Fantagraphics because you didn’t like things Gary Groth said while he was exercising his free speech?
Corey
>>You seem to be ignoring the right of people to voice their opinions against the crap that Michael Moore was spewing. Moore got his chance (although I don’t think the venue was appropriate) to say what he wanted so why can’t people, who disagree with him, get their chance to voice their opinion?<<
Where did I say they can’t? Go back and check. I never said that. I said “Boooo” is not an opinion. It’s a loud noise designed to stop someone from talking. But I never said people should not be allowed to voice opinions.
>>It seems the right to free speech only applies to liberals and those who have other opinions get attacked.<<
Considering that statement bears no resemblance to anything I’ve said, I’m glad you have the qualifier of “It seems” in there.
PAD
PAD said:
>>I just don’t remember this huge outcry when, for example, GLAAD decided to get Dr. Laura’s show off the air.<<
If I’d had this forum then, I’d have condemned their actions. >>
Yes, I had a feeling that was the case. I’m pleased that you’re one of the few free-speech absolutists out there.
It also always disappoints me when people who should stand for freedom of expression seek to stifle that same freedom of expression when they dislike the views. There’s a current organized boycott of talk radio and of Michael Savage (who is reportedly homophobic).
If your only answer to someone’s views is to silence them, then you’re conceding defeat. I mean, I think I can out debate the Dixie Chicks, for Pete’s sake. I don’t need to bother with a boycott.
PAD wrote:
“Well, I don’t boycott Domino’s Pizza, if that’s what you mean. I’m just not a big believer in punishing someone financially because I differ with their opinions. Frankly, I don’t comprehend why anyone would.”
Okay, then… what about your “personal boycott” (your words, from BID) of Fantagraphics because you didn’t like things Gary Groth said while he was exercising his free speech?<<
You can’t exactly compare boycotting the Dixie Chicks because they’re anti-war and my ceasing support of a magazine that slammed me as an individual so regularly that Groth once referred to me as “one of (their) favorite whipping boys.” The Carol Kalish slam was simply the final straw. On the other hand, even when I was at my angriest, I never endeavored to organize anything. I just said, “That’s all I can stands ’cause I can’t stands no more.”
There was no other Fantagraphics material I was purchasing anyway. If I was a regular purchaser of “Love and Rockets,” no matter how angry I was at Groth, I doubt I would have ceased supporting it. How do I know? Because I’ve purchased other FBI material, such as “Ghost World” or their collections of “Li’l Abner.” Plus my older daughters’ tastes run along Fantagraphics material, and I’ve bought that for them.
Still don’t buy Comics Journal, though. Hey, maybe they need regime change…
PAD
All right, then. I see you aren’t totally boycotting Fantagraphics. Fair enough.
Corey
>>Give me a break PAD. It’s OK for Moore to criticize Bush, but it’s not OK to criticize Moore? According to what logic?<<
Certainly not according to mine, and I really, REALLY wish people would stop reinterpreting what I was saying so they could attack the reinterpretations.
Again: Booing is not expressing an opinion. Booing is an attempt to silence. Cheering is not an attempt to silence
Let me put it to you this way: If Steve Martin had come out and, instead of making a joke, had said instead, “I just want to say, I support the President and I think Michael Moore is an áššhølë for saying what he did,” I’d have zero problem with that.
Now: I’ve said repeatedly I support people’s rights to criticize both liberal and conservative opinions. If you folks want to continue to pretend I didn’t say that, go right ahead. But, frankly, it’s getting kind of pathetic.
PAD
And I’d like to point out to Star Wolf than a commercial radio station has no obligation to free speech since they’re paying for the songs anyway. There is nothing free about the speech or songs you hear in a commercial radio station.
And I’d like to point out that there’s a difference between a weapons delivery system and a weapon of masss destruction. That said, it’s only a weapons delivery system if it is built to deliver weapons, like warheads, to targets. If it launches satellites into the air, then that’s what it does regardless of tangentital theories about what it could be used for.
I feel about the same way PAD’s article said (not the reintepretations, though).
I believe in freedom of speech. As a naive young journalist, I still believe that you should be able to say what you want without being retalliated against.
Thousands of radio stations banning the Dixie Chicks for comments about the President? Someone on this very board saying “Michael Moore should be shot!”
This is ridiculous. Did we all get uprooted to Amerika?
I know it’s not popular to disagree with Governor Bush right now, but I am against this war, plain and simple. I am not anti-soldier (one of the people I respect most in the world was sent over there, and not a day goes by that I don’t wish for his safe return), and I am not anti-American’s safety.
Anyone who truly believes this war wasn’t a smoke screen to turn the attention away from our inability to get justice for 9-11 is deluding themselves.
From PAD:
>>Again: Booing is not expressing an opinion. Booing is an attempt to silence. Cheering is not an attempt to silence<<
Gotta disagree here. Cheering is a display of affection and/or agreement. Booing is a display of contempt (for lack of a better word) or disagreement. If someone’s going to stand up in public and express their opinion, they should be ready for either display.
PAD, my point is very simple. People were cheering Moore, creating the feeling that he had everyone with him, especially since he had the gall to say “we” a lot. So in that case I think booing was an apropriate way for some to point out that they didn’t like what he said. He was hardly silenced. His speech was broadcasted clearly and got reprinted all over the world.
You’re welcome to make yourself clearer on this issue. What are those “stiff penalties” you’re talking about in your last paragraph, which in my view is a textbook definition of “hyperbole”?
EClark1849: How you can be against the war, but FOR the people that fight it? Ultimately, do you know how stupid that really sounds?
Luigi Novi: It only sounds “stupid” to you, perhaps because you’re ignoring who’s in charge of the war. The war is decided by politicians. It isn’t decided by my buddy who joined the reserves. If I have a friend, and he joins the military, say, under Clinton, and then Bush becomes Prez and has us go to war, does that mean I’m somehow against my friend? No. Because soldiers don’t make war decisions, our government does. The soldiers are just guys doing a job. When you join the military, you don’t know if you’re going to be going to war, and if you are, whether the war is going to be a popular one or an unpopular one, a just one or an unjust one. You can’t go to the recruitment office and say, “I’m joining the Marines, but I get to pick which wars I go to fight in.” It doesn’t work that way. Laying responsibility for the war on the individual members of the military, who are our sons, fathers, sisters, daughters, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc., is demonstrative of a flimsy intellect.
Let’s say there’s a war that the entire country is behind, like say WWII. A youngster inspired by the courage of those who fought decides to join the military when he’s old enough. But then the country goes to war again, this time in a very unpopular war, like say Vietnam. Is it the soldier’s fault that he war he was ordered to fight it isn’t a popular one, or even one that he himself might not have wanted as a citizen? No. He has to follow orders. He likely joined the military for perfectly honorable reasons, but can’t decide not to fight because he doesn’t think the war is just.
For that reason, I can be against the war, but that doesn’t mean I point the finger at soldiers. I should point it at the president. Even if I were against the war, I’d want the soldiers to be safe and to return home safe. I wouldn’t be trying to sabotage them like that one scumbag American who attacked a barracks, or the fûçkšŧìçkš who hold up the sign seen here: http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/03/Fragging.shtml
EClark1849: It’s like protesting sports but being FOR the people that play them. Against art, but FOR the people that create it. Or protesting books, but being FOR the people that write or publish them.
Luigi Novi: Artists are responsible for their art. Writers for their writing. Soldiers aren’t responsible for whether a war is declared, or for deciding how it’s prosecuted.
Julio Diaz: I’m not pretending that Moore doesn’t do well financially — surely better than I — but I doubt he’s considered wealthy. Maybe lower upper class.
Luigi Novi: His home is valued at $1.9 million.
Peter David: Booing is not the same. Booing is the utilizing of the “Heckler’s Veto.” The attempt not to meet free speech with free speech, but instead the endeavor to stop the other person from speaking entirely.
Luigi Novi: So what should those who thought his rant was distasteful have done? Stand up and say, “Michael, I disagree with you because…”? To echo Jeremy Schwartz, you can’t exactly have a coherent, articulate debate between someone standing at a podium and people seated in the audience, particularly when the guy at the podium only has a minute or two to talk anyway. Moore was being an idiot, and those in the audience who thought so let him know it.
Bill Ritter: I cringed during the second half of Brody’s speech.
Luigi Novi: I think Halle Berry’s husband might’ve cringed before he even started the first half.
Personally, I thought Adrien Brody’s speech—particularly the second half—was the nicest and most poignant of the evening. Given the movie he made, I think it might almost have seemed odd not to comment on it, because unlike Moore, Brody actually made his comments about peace and war pertinent to the movie for which he won.
Roger Tang: The Awards are given by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts. I assume Michael Moore is a member of the Academy.
Luigi Novi: Why? Not all actors and directors are members. Membership in the Academy is by invitation of the Board of Governors and is limited to those who have achieved distinction in the arts and sciences of motion pictures. Some of the criteria for admittance are: film credits of a caliber which reflect the high standards of the Academy, receipt of an Academy Award nomination, achievement of unique distinction, earning of special merit, or making of an outstanding contribution to film. It is unlikely that Moore, having only been nominated for the first time with Bowling for Columbine, is one of the Academy’s 6,000 members.
ryard: I just don’t remember this huge outcry when, for example, GLAAD decided to get Dr. Laura’s show off the air.
Luigi Novi: I seem to recall more than one person publicly opining that it was censorship.
Peter David: I’m just not a big believer in punishing someone financially because I differ with their opinions. Frankly, I don’t comprehend why anyone would.
Luigi Novi: But what constitutes “punishment,” and what constitutes simply making a personal decision not to patronize someone’s works if you don’t like them, even if it has the effect of lessening the success of those works? I mean, if I was thinking of buying the new Dixie Chicks CD, but then decide not too because I was so offended by what Natalie Maines said, or if I own or manage a radio station and stop playing their songs, don’t I simply have the right to do so? Must it be seen as “punishing” someone? It’s not like anyone has an “entitlement” to be a rich and famous artist, or anything.
Richard Franklin: I’m curious. Where did Michael Moore out and out lie in Bowling For Columbine? Please supply source material for your argument.
Luigi Novi: Haven’t you been reading this board? Jim posted this link yesterday that details a lot of Moore’s lies and distortions, which reference provided: http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003233
Michael Bregman: Moore’s speech was violent and rude in an evening that was about entertainment and glitz.
Luigi Novi: It was arguably rude. It was not “violent.”
Luigi, I obviously wasn’t talking about physical violence.
BTW, how many Mario Bros jokes do you get a day? 🙂
I gotta agree with Jeff about the booing. Also, there are different types of boos. Those that are meant to silence and those that voice diasgreeement, disgust and so on. As Jeff said: how else could the “boo people” voice their opinion to counter the “cheer people”?
>>As a naive young journalist, I still believe that you should be able to say what you want without being retalliated against.
Tell that to Trent Lott.
We have the right to say what we want without fear of government retribution. Saying our speech should have no consequences is not reasonable. I attended a Bonnie Raitt concert in 1992, and she was so political on so many occasions that I doubt I will go to a concert of hers again. It doesn’t mean I don’t like her music, just that I have a bad taste in my mouth because of the concert.
Having said that, I think organized boycotts of the Dixie Chicks are pretty over the top.
There are times and places when booing is inappropriate. There are times and places when it’s just fine. And the *effect* of the booing is an important part of figuring out whether it’s appropriate or not.
If booing is constant and loud enough to prevent the speaker’s message from being delivered, then it falls into the “heckler’s veto” category that PAD mentioned and would be inappropriate. If it’s the counterpart to polite applause and *doesn’t* prevent the speaker from continuing, then it’s *not* appropriate.
Not having actually watched the Oscars, I can’t say which was the case with Moore.
>>>As Jeff said: how else could the “boo people” voice their opinion to counter the “cheer people”?
Not cheering, no standing ovations, I think.
Kinda like most people did when Polanksi was anounced as the winner.
“>>>As Jeff said: how else could the “boo people” voice their opinion to counter the “cheer people”?
Not cheering, no standing ovations, I think.”
So the best way to counter another’s action is to sit on my ášš? I think I’ll call the cops and tell them that.
I’ll have to remember that moral standard next time I am awakened early in the morning by jerks.
Omar, so you’re saying the people who didn’t like Moore should’ve not done anything, pretty much leaving the stage to the cheering people? Obviously the effect would be that no one had a problem with what he said, which would give Moore’s comments more validity. Unacceptable, sorry.
You know, I’m seriously considering starting my own weblog so I can more fully explain myself sometimes. Since I’m not anyone of note, yet, I suppose it would just be a chance for me to express my self on a truly public forum, the Internet. That said, let me address somethings.
PAD’s position on boycotts and mine differ. I don’t consider a boycott repression of your right to free speech, but I do consider it a consequence. It’s possible that what ever you say may tick some people off so much that they may stop buying your stuff. Your constituitonal right of freedom of speech merely stops the GOVERNMENT from censoring you. Unless someone knows something I don’t, the GOVERNMENT has done nothing to infringe upon the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore’s, or Sean Penn’s right to freely express themselves. Their fans did, and their fans have every right to support or NOT support an artist for saying or DOING something they don’t like.
People who don’t want to fight shouldn’t join the military, period, not even for college tuition or federal assistance in buying a house. To support someone means to give aid, comfort, and approval for what they are, do or have done. I’ll always love my brother, but he wouldn’t have my support if he were cheating on his wife or beating his kids. I don’t support people who are doing things I don’t approve of, especially since the most basic definition of support is to give approval, encourage, or uphold. I mean, every taxpayper supports their troops, whether they want to or not, and if that’s the definition you’re using, fine. Otherwise, I just don’t see it. Sorry.
Coming in quite late to this topic…
What Michael Moore did was not a “spirited discussion”. A discussion implies more than one person engaged in conversation.
Michael Moore conducted a “Spirited Diatribe”. Diatribes don’t typically welcome debate and discourse.
I do like Moore’s work, but I thought his “speech” at the Oscar’s was low rent and not very pertinent to the current reality.
But hey, I loved Supergirl #80!
-JoeS
Two points:
First: “The Awards are given by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts. I assume Michael Moore is a member of the Academy. How illegitimate is it for a member to take a stand at a fuction of a group he’s a member of? (It might be improper, but how illegitimate?). “
I don’t know whether Moore was a member of the Academy before winning, but he likely can become one now. From http://www.oscars.org/academy/history2.html:
“Membership in the Academy is by invitation of the Board of Governors and is limited to those who have achieved distinction in the arts and sciences of motion pictures. Some of the criteria for admittance are: film credits of a caliber which reflect the high standards of the Academy, receipt of an Academy Award nomination, achievement of unique distinction, earning of special merit, or making of an outstanding contribution to film.
Members represent 14 branches – Actors, Art Directors, Cinematographers, Directors, Documentary, Executives, Film Editors, Music, Producers, Public Relations, Short Films and Feature Animation, Sound, Visual Effects and Writers.
A candidate for membership in the Academy must be sponsored by at least two members of the branch for which the person may qualify. Each proposed member must first receive the favorable endorsement of the appropriate branch executive committee before his or her name is submitted to the Board of Governors for its approval.”
So the nomination would give him an “in,” and it’s my understanding that most nominees are invited to join.
The Academy does not directly involve itself in politics, but there’s no prohibition from its members doing so.
Incidentally, my understanding is that Kevin Smith became a member by virtue of being an executive producer on GOOD WILL HUNTING.
Second: “Luigi Novi: His home is valued at $1.9 million.”
I’ll have to check my copy of STUPID WHITE MEN again, but my understanding is that he bought his home several years ago when it was valued at much less. I know he discusses it in the book, but I don’t recall verbatim.
According to the Internet Movie Database, Julio, he admitted it on Hannity & Colmes.
Michael Bregman: Luigi, I obviously wasn’t talking about physical violence.
Luigi Novi: The word violence specifically refers to physical force.
Michael Bregman: BTW, how many Mario Bros jokes do you get a day?
Luigi Novi: Today, none. In high school, every day, it seemed. 🙂
EClark1849: People who don’t want to fight shouldn’t join the military, period, not even for college tuition or federal assistance in buying a house.
Luigi Novi: Agreed. Who do you know has joined who doesn’t want to fight?
The earlier point, as I recall, had nothing to do with people who join the military who don’t want to fight; it had to do with how those who are against the war (the decent ones, at least) direct their protest toward the government, and not at the individual soldiers, who are just doing their job, and who the protesters want to come home safe and sound.
Again—what if someone is spurred to join because some military action that the country is largely behind, like say our invasion of Afghanistan? Was the person wrong to join then? In the view of someone who was for that invasion, no, he wasn’t. But then what if he is shipped off to fight in a war that many are against, like our invasion of Iraq? Is it his fault that his superiors or the president ordered him there? No. If I were against the war, I’d direct my dissent at those that make the decisions to go to war, because my disagreement would be with them, not a friend or relative in the military, whom I want to come home safe and sound.
EClark1849: To support someone means to give aid, comfort, and approval for what they are, do or have done. I’ll always love my brother, but he wouldn’t have my support if he were cheating on his wife or beating his kids.
Luigi Novi: You’re equating joining the military—a perfectly honorable thing to do—with infidelity and spousal abuse?
I don’t think any war protesters purport to “support” our troops in the sense of agreeing with the war; They simply don’t bear any ill will toward them if they see them on the street. Their ill will is directed at the president and the government.
“I will admit that there were diplomatic shortcomings in preparation for this action”
And the understatement of the millenium award goes to….
<
**Luigi Novi: Agreed. Who do you know has joined who doesn’t want to fight?
The earlier point, as I recall, had nothing to do with people who join the military who don’t want to fight; it had to do with how those who are against the war (the decent ones, at least) direct their protest toward the government, and not at the individual soldiers, who are just doing their job, and who the protesters want to come home safe and sound.**>>
I reiterate my point Luigi which you seem to be skipping all over. Soldiers should and usually do join to fight, but yes some join just for the benefits and hope they don’t have to fight. It happens. Soldiers go AWOL all the time when they realize this.
Next: If they’re joining to fight, they HAVE to realize that they may be called to fight or do a tour somewhere they don’t want to go. Heck it’s usually explained to them when they sign up. That being the case, They support the actions their country takes, which means if you support them, you support the action as well.
<
**Luigi Novi: You’re equating joining the military—a perfectly honorable thing to do—with infidelity and spousal abuse?
I don’t think any war protesters purport to “support” our troops in the sense of agreeing with the war; They simply don’t bear any ill will toward them if they see them on the street. Their ill will is directed at the president and the government. **>>
I don’t bear any ill will to people who don’t support the war, but it doesn’t mean that I support them. I just support their right to have that view, and I support that because EVERYONE has that right.
I support our troops because I believe in and approve of their mission. If I didn’t , I wouldn’t support them. Doesn’t mean I’d want to see them harmed. Heck, I ‘m for the war and I don’t even want to see the Iraqi soldiers harmed. I wish they’d just quit fighting. Doesn’t mean I support them in their mission.
I’m with you on this PAD. Seeking to silence or disparage those who oppose the official position of thstate sets us down a dark and dangerous path that leads to a very UNamerican America.
>>What I’m saying–and I thought this was clear, but obviously it wasn’t–is that for many people in this country, freedom of speech is not met with more freedom of speech, as it should be. It’s met instead with threats. With boycotts. With attacks not on what’s being said, but on those who are saying them. With hostility that those who have opposing views would dare to say such a thing, and they must therefore be punished for those actions.>>
>>I just don’t have that kind of mental filter that inclines me to walk away from a project I’d otherwise patronize simply because of the attitudes of the creators. >>
Peter, I see your point, but I disagree. It’s not about punishment or silencing, it’s about support. I’m not going to support Pat Robertson because he espouses a lot of right-wing religious zealotry – even though I’m a person of faith. I just don’t think my money needs to go there. I won’t threaten him or prevent him from speaking, but I won’t help him either.
“Richard Franklin: I’m curious. Where did Michael Moore out and out lie in Bowling For Columbine? Please supply source material for your argument.
Luigi Novi: Haven’t you been reading this board? Jim posted this link yesterday that details a lot of Moore’s lies and distortions, which reference provided: http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003233“;
Missed it. Sorry. I was genuinely curious what he felt Michael Moore was lying about. Personally, I respect Mr. Moore but I’m intelligent enough to understand that he may not present everything in his documentaries without a slant to them so I take everything he says with a grain of salt, but it does make me think which is what I enjoy about his films.
As far as his lying goes, the article that was linked here does seem to indicate that Mr. Moore did indeed slant things for his position and several times the article did quote other sources which is what you should do when writing an article of this nature. However, that article was also biased because it choose to only cover the facts that Moore had slanted and it skipped over about 75% of the movie so I don’t think you could say based on that article that everything Michael Moore states is a lie exactly. Just realize that he does tend to slant things a certain way.
Zeitenflug said:
Many countries (Russia, Germany, France, Japan and so on, about 250 countries are opposing the US attack of Iraq) say, it would be better to avoid war and to apply other means. After all, when the Iraqian people are dead, it’s hard to free them.
Great googly moogly…you’re gonna have to back up that 250 countries statement…I only count about 200 countries overall! Maybe my Google search is off. Anyway, since there are already over forty in the coalition (more than the first Gulf War, I am led to believe), well, let’s just say I think you were a little off in your numbers.
In fact, everything I have seen states that there are only a handful of countries actively OPPOSED to the war. Guess the key word there is actively. Matter of opinion, I guess. They’re opposed to the war but aren’t actually DOING anything about it other than saying “naughty naughty.”
And besides, don’t forget that France has pledged to help the coalition if chemical weapons are used, so how exactly are they exhausting all other means in that case? It’s a strict if-then.
I remember Tom Daschle in 1998 when Clinton bombed Iraq. He said that Clinton had exausted all diplomatic options and had no choice. That was after, you know, zero resolutions and with no disclosure to the American people beforehand. Now Tom Daschle talks about Bush’s failure in diplomacy in this 13 year headlong rush to war. How much time do we have to give here?
Gordon said:
The new right is all about controlling the message, and if you’re not part of the message, you better shut up or face their wrath
I disagree with this, but since the “old left” has been playing this game for decades, I can’t say I have any sympathy for it either.
Someone said:
“Membership in the Academy is by invitation of the Board of Governors and is limited to those who have achieved distinction in the arts and sciences of motion pictures. Some of the criteria for admittance are: film credits of a caliber which reflect the high standards of the Academy, receipt of an Academy Award nomination, achievement of unique distinction, earning of special merit, or making of an outstanding contribution to film.
I dunno. I teach high school and one of my sophomore students was a member. She had done a couple McDonalds commercials…and her brother did one of the voices in that Snow White “Happily Ever After” film… Anyway, she loaned me her Academy copy of Shakespeare in Love several months before it came out on video, and every thirty minutes or so, the whole “Property of the MMPA” stuff scrolled across…or whatever the acronym is. So, the moral of this rambling story is, do a couple McDonalds commercials and Harvey Weinstein will send you a copy of his movie just in case.
Daniel said:
Seeking to silence or disparage those who oppose the official position of thstate sets us down a dark and dangerous path that leads to a very UNamerican America.
Again, I dunno. I have no problem with booing down a KKK member who is complaining about the official position of the state. He can say what he wants, sure. I’ll heckle him. Now, when the GOVERNMENT tells people they can’t say what they want…
You know, like the Pledge in schools…hmm….
Wow. I’m asking for it with that last line.
The article had a slant! Of course it did! The thesis was that Micheal Moore was a liar. And then it pointed out examples of Micheal Moore lying!
Gee, you think maybe those examples prove that he lies in his films? That the films include fiction? That these then aren’t documentaries?
My gosh, you are so freaking relativistic.
From Jeff
“Gotta disagree here. Cheering is a display of affection and/or agreement. Booing is a display of contempt (for lack of a better word) or disagreement. If someone’s going to stand up in public and express their opinion, they should be ready for either display.”
THANK YOU. well said
One thing I have trouble explaining to my friends is that Moore didn’t actually prove anything in his documentary. I don’t think he fully set out to do so. Although his opinions are made obvious, he tried to entertain other explanations. The most interesting part to me was when he found out that bullets were cheaply available to Canadian Wal-Mart customers. That blows out of the water the entire campaign against K-Mart. I have some liberal friends who could not understand this point despite my doing everything but state it in a logical formula. Another point, that it is the media that makes Americans paranoid and violent, is interesting, but does not fully explain anything. What makes the median that way? Answer: we do. Our influence upon the media creates a positive feedback loop, for sure, but how did it get started? It originated in us. Why?
of course I meant “media” in that question, not median. I’m not talking about a grassy knoll here, or am I? Probably time for sleep, then I’ll have it figured out.
Peter David: Booing is not expressing an opinion. Booing is an attempt to silence.
Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. That would seem to be a matter of intent, and a person may very well choose to boo with the simple intention of voicing their displeasure. People don’t necessarily boo to silence someone. To do so would require that there are enough people in the audience to assist you to make your collective boos louder than the guy using the microphone, and there’s no guarantee of that. Even large portions of the audience would have trouble booing louder than a guy with a microphone, and if you believe Moore, only five people booed him. If that’s true, how can it be an attempt to silence? Saying that booing is just an attempt to silence is an unfounded assumption, an assertion made with no proof, and a mischaracterization.
I also find it disingenuous to refer to either Moore’s rant or Natalie Maines’ rhetoric as “spirited discussion.” Had one of them said, “The war is unjust because it’s illegal and violates the United Nations’ vote and the desires of many countries,” that would’ve been one thing. Had they said, “The war is wrong because it will cause a humanitarian disaster,” or “Our policy with Iraq is inconsistent with how we deal with dictators in Cuba, North Korea, China, etc.” (and in the proper forum) that would’ve been one thing too. But spouting off about the 2000 election, and being ashamed that the Prez is from the same state as you, is just ad hominem rhetoric. (And I voted for Gore, just so you know.)
EClark1849: I reiterate my point Luigi which you seem to be skipping all over. Soldiers should and usually do join to fight, but yes some join just for the benefits and hope they don’t have to fight. It happens. Soldiers go AWOL all the time when they realize this.
Luigi Novi: Soldiers go AWOL all the time??? Got any facts or statistics to back that up? I’d be interested to see them.
And if this was your point, then I must’ve missed it. I could’ve sworn that your original point I was responding to was your inability to understand how someone could be against the war but not against our troops.
EClark1849: If they’re joining to fight, they HAVE to realize that they may be called to fight or do a tour somewhere they don’t want to go. Heck it’s usually explained to them when they sign up.
Luigi Novi: Which is precisely why good-faith protestors direct their protests at the government, and not at soldiers, and why one who is against the war can still be supportive of our troops as far as wanting them to be safe and come home in one piece. There’s no contradiction in this. I could be against the war, but still walk up to a soldier and shake his hand for doing a dangerous, life-threatening job for good intentions.
EClark1849: That being the case, They support the actions their country takes…
Luigi Novi: No.
They do not necessarily support the actions their country takes. They do what they do because they’re ordered to.
Again, CitizenA is inspired by the courage of his military during a war that he and is country is mostly behind, like WWII. He joins. The President/Congress then sends him and the military off to a war that he doesn’t agree with morally or philosophically. Why does he go? Because he supports his government’s position? No. Because he’s ordered to, and cannot disobey orders. Going AWOL and being branded a deserter and having to live on the run or in another country is not exactly a viable or attractive option that’s open to him. You don’t know when you join whether you’re going to fight in a war that’s popular or unpopular.
EClark1849: which means if you support them, you support the action as well.
Luigi Novi: Personally, I’ve never heard war protestors say that they’re against the war, but “support” our troops. I have heard them opine that they don’t direct their complaints or vitriol at soldiers (though some, unfortunately do do that), but even if those against the war do use the word “support” with regard to our troops, it’s obvious that they simply mean they bear them no ill will.
I can choose not to support the war, while not necessarily condemning my brothers and sisters who joined in good faith and serve their country because their ordered to.
EClark1849: I don’t bear any ill will to people who don’t support the war, but it doesn’t mean that I support them. I just support their right to have that view…
Luigi Novi: And? What’s your point?
It seems that you’re using the word “support” somewhat loosely, to sometimes mean “agree with” and sometimes mean “respect the right of.” Perhaps we should establish a common meaning in order to both use the word.
You say, ”it doesn’t mean that I support them” to connote that you disagree with them, and then say, ” I just support their right to have that view” to connote that you respect their rights. If you can use the word this interchangeably, then why do you find it so inscrutable for someone to say that they’re against the war, but not against the troops, especially if by that second half of the statement it’s clear that they simply mean that they bear soldiers no ill will and want them to come home soon and safe and sound?
EClark1849: I support our troops because I believe in and approve of their mission. If I didn’t , I wouldn’t support them. Doesn’t mean I’d want to see them harmed.
Luigi Novi: You just described the very viewpoint you claimed earlier not to understand. 🙂
I think the confusion on your part is, you think of “support” as referring specifically to first part of that statement only, when it can also be understood to describe the last part.
Richard Franklin: However, that article was also biased because it choose to only cover the facts that Moore had slanted and it skipped over about 75% of the movie
Luigi Novi: That’s not what the word “biased” means.
Bias refers to a predisposition on the part of someone that causes them to be less than honest and object in the way they argue a point or present the facts. If the charges leveled at Moore on these sites is accurate, then Moore has deliberately lied about numerous things in Bowling for Columbine, and most certainly because of his bias.
Bias has nothing to do with how much material of a given work one covers to prove a point. What you’re trying to argue is that John Fund did not sample a large enough amount of the movie to prove his point. This not only has nothing to do with the meaning of the word “bias,” it’s flat-out untrue, as anyone who reads this reports can see.
The report mentions at least six significant portions of the movie that depict the facts less than accurately:
1. The nature of the Lockheed Martin plant, and what they build there. (2min. 29sec.)
2. The way Moore was supposedly able to easily get a rifle when opening an account at a bank. (1min. 49sec.)
3. The circumstances surrounding the shooting at Buell, the young shooter, his mother’s employment, and the house where the boy got the gun (14min. 57sec.)
4. The U.S.’s supposed aid to the Taliban. (30sec.)
5. The manner in which Charlton Heston and the NRA supposedly react to tragic school shootings (10:45sec.)
6. The way in the which the Willie Horton ad was used during the 1988 Presidential campaign. (5sec.)
The report also looks at an assertion Moore makes in his book Stupid White Men about Bush’s Presidential campaign budget, and comments he made to Lou Dobb’s about the accuracy of his work.
And of course, there are other sources that point out glaring inaccuracies in the movie. At http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html, David T. Hardy points out flat-out lies in Bowling’s animated sequence equating the KKK with the NRA (3min. 10sec.), the comparisons between the gun culture in Canada and the gun culture in the U.S. (10min. 58sec.), including a segment of the film in which Moore buys ammo at a Canadian Wal-Mart. That’s about eight points of argument right there.
Putting aside the fact that these scenes account for 37% of the film, not 25% (The film is 1 hour, 56 minutes and 45 seconds, not counting opening title sequences or end credits), and that even a documentary whose material is 25% inaccurate or false is itself enough to call the quality of the “documentary” into question, your argument, Richard, that Fund did not cover the rest of the film is simply obtuse. The veracity of a documentary, and the objectivity and honesty of its author is not a matter of shear percentage of the running time, it’s a matter of whether the most prominently depicted portions of the material are accurate. The material cited may not comprise the majority of the film, but they certainly comprise a large portion of it, and more importantly, its most controversial and seemingly dámņìņg arguments that Moore puts forward in it. Just how much of a documentary has to be lies in order for the film as a whole can be called into question? 25% isn’t enough? 37% isn’t enough? Does it have to be 50%? 90?
I would ask the question I often ask when someone counters that inaccuracies that pointed out in their argument are not veridically significant: If they’re not that significant, then why did Moore put them in? He didn’t make a mistake when he edited footage of Charlton Heston’s speeches. He deliberately juxtaposed different snippets of footage and dialogue to portray Heston in a manner that was not truthful, and in so doing, maligned him. If these distortions are not a big deal when judging the film, then why did Moore simply not make them in the first place? Simple. Because when one lies like this, one does so because they know that they can’t make their point alone with the truth alone, which means their point is not a solid one to begin with. If your argument can only be made through lies, then your argument has failed. If one responds to reportage of these falsehoods by saying, “What’s the difference?”, my response would be “If there’s no difference, why did the guy put them in there?”
On a side note, yet another that no one mentions is Moore’s confrontation with Ðìçk Clark. While this was not an example of inaccuracy, I did see it as somewhat distasteful (even when I first saw the movie and was rooting for Moore), because Moore placed Clark in a difficult position by confronting him when Clark was in the middle of going somewhere. Shouldn’t Moore have called Clark up and made an appointment? Perhaps he did, and he got David Spade on the other line saying, “And you are……?”, but if so, he never mentions it in the film. Had he done so, then confronting Clark in the parking lot might have seemed less avoidable.
EClark1849: …so I don’t think you could say based on that article that everything Michael Moore states is a lie exactly.
Luigi Novi: Agreed. Because no one said it was. The only one that said “everything” was you.
This letter by Moore was posted on Roger Ebert’s site at http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert231.htm:
I am sorry you had to reprint Internet crap in your column today. It is a lie to say anything but the following:
1. I was handed that gun in that bank and walked out with it and have it in my possession to this day. I NEVER had to go to any gun shop. The scene happened just the way you saw it. I’d be happy to send you all the raw footage.
2. The Columbine shooters DID go to the bowling alley that morning. I can supply you with the five witnesses, including their teacher. It’s all there in the investigation conducted by the state of Colorado.
I don’t understand why, after all these years, you would run stuff that wasn’t true. It was hugely disappointing to read it.
I never really commented on the second point because I didn’t see whether Klebold and Harris went bowling that morning as an important point. As for the first, Moore does not address the assertion made at the Opinion Journal that the scene was pre-arranged a month in advance, and that picking up the gun from a gun shop somewhere else is what a customer would normally have had to do. As it states at the Opinion Journal:
Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore’s film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. “What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing,” she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. “Typically, you’re looking at a week to 10 days waiting period,” she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: “He just portrayed us as backward hicks.”
Michael Bregman writes: Gordon,paranoid much? Are the evil rightists are out to get you and silence you forever? Poor Moore who got an Oscar and his speech reprinted all over the world should get sympathy exactly why?
There are rightist elements in a media that is mostly leftist. Live with it.
So your best response is to insult? I guess my point is made….
I used to like you Mr. David, but now, not so much.