Free to watch. It's a 'documentary' about Michael Moore's failed attempt to vote Bush out of a second term by appealing to the 'slackers'/the 'other 50%'.
Its like watching 2 kids arguing in the playground over whether superman
could kick batman's ass.
I mean, if you want to brow beat each other about your political stance,
you could at least bother to learn enough 'facts' to have a real opinion.
I've considered bringing this up on previous threads where people get
all uppity about whether they are for or against people like Moore.
To be for or against him is like political thumb sucking, he's not important
he's just loud and color coded for the morons to easily grasp.
I figured that bringing this up in a thread that hasn't really gotten too
serious yet might have more success in inspiring people to go and read
up on something real.
Its like watching 2 kids arguing in the playground over whether superman
could kick batman's ass.
I mean, if you want to brow beat each other about your political stance,
you could at least bother to learn enough 'facts' to have a real opinion.
I've considered bringing this up on previous threads where people get
all uppity about whether they are for or against people like Moore.
To be for or against him is like political thumb sucking, he's not important
he's just loud and color coded for the morons to easily grasp.
I figured that bringing this up in a thread that hasn't really gotten too
serious yet might have more success in inspiring people to go and read
up on something real.
Too true. Michael Moore is entertaining but when it comes down to it he has a habit of oversimplifying important issues.
Honestly, I'm glad that Michael Moore is out there bringing focus to problems/corruption, but I'd prefer he do it more honestly. He adds things in to make it more dramatic, but unfortunately most of the people that watch his movies, don't research and get the real facts. Instead, they assume that everything Michael Moore states is the gospel.
Its like watching 2 kids arguing in the playground over whether superman
could kick batman's ass.
I mean, if you want to brow beat each other about your political stance,
you could at least bother to learn enough 'facts' to have a real opinion.
I've considered bringing this up on previous threads where people get
all uppity about whether they are for or against people like Moore.
To be for or against him is like political thumb sucking, he's not important
he's just loud and color coded for the morons to easily grasp.
I figured that bringing this up in a thread that hasn't really gotten too
serious yet might have more success in inspiring people to go and read
up on something real.
Mr. Johnson, c'mon! Who are these people?
John Pilger
Pilger is a supporter of Venezuelan President Hugo Ch
If you watch movies or television, even a "documentary" for your political or sociological information, I would humbly suggest that you also take a read through Jerry Mander's: 4 Arguments for the Elimination of Television.
:: Small aside: Jerry Mander btw came from a background of television advertising, before realizing its "inherent evil" capacity to subliminally influence. He cites numerous scientific studies conducted by corporations, PR firms and governments on how to turn A/V media into a poweful brainwashing tool to impressive effect::
Its an interesting read that makes a lot of points about the psychological & neurological effect of televised/filmed media and its potent ability to distort the perception of reality.
I dont agree with Mr. Mander that Television and film are "inherently evil technologies with zero redeemable value" but his points are very well thought out and quite compelling. Great food for thought.
Having seen a bit of Michael Moore's work...I cant help but watch a frame of his films and wonder...how much is out of context? How much is potently edited, adjusted, music, audio effects, etc to steer the viewer to a predetermined conclusion? I'm not saying he's lying or being totally dishonest, and I appreciate the role of open civilian oversight of our nations issues, but I also realize that he spent months editing dozens or hundreds of hours of footage to get the bits and pieces that hammer home HIS message. Not the reality of what was filmed or what occurred.
Thus, I cannot trust it. It would be like a scientist who performed dozens of experiments, and only reported his successes, thus intentionally distorting the facts by omission. Which is precisely what Michael Moore is most expert at.
Its like watching 2 kids arguing in the playground over whether superman
could kick batman's ass.
I mean, if you want to brow beat each other about your political stance,
you could at least bother to learn enough 'facts' to have a real opinion.
I've considered bringing this up on previous threads where people get
all uppity about whether they are for or against people like Moore.
To be for or against him is like political thumb sucking, he's not important
he's just loud and color coded for the morons to easily grasp.
I figured that bringing this up in a thread that hasn't really gotten too
serious yet might have more success in inspiring people to go and read
up on something real.
I think he brings up valid issues, but I just don't like how he's "EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO MY OPINION YAAAARRR LISTEN TO MEEEEEE" attitude about it. It's way too in your face.
Its like watching 2 kids arguing in the playground over whether superman
could kick batman's ass.
Exactly. I've never understood why most liberals decry Fox as biased (which it is) and attack Bill O'Reilly and then idolize moore. At least Fox, for example, makes some effort to report the facts, and then skews them as much as possible. If i wanted moore's kind of opinion i could talk to any rebellious teenager and learn just as much.
Real facts are much more interesting than biased, partisan sources' 'he saids he said' facts. They just require actual learning, which sucks, i know.
Both sides of the equation have valid points of view, what neither have are genuine sources
that validate their opinions enough that we should care and thus they rely on hyperbole
and spin the facts to whatever conclusion suits their agenda.
Thats why i suggested if people wanted some genuine sourced information, read up
on the many books and films Pilger and Chomsky have been involved in for the last 20 years.
What frustrates me is the inherint need of people to be spoon fed 'easy information' and
thats why Moore and O'Reilly will always make money.
Look at how quickly Jonathan (or should I say Jenitha?![thats a lazy spelling joke,
not a masculinity joke]) wanted me to spare him the effort of cutting and pasting Jon Pilger or
Noam Chomsky into a google search tab.
What frustrates me is the inherint need of people to be spoon fed 'easy information' and
thats why Moore and O'Reilly will always make money.
This is how it is with everything, though. Not just the direct social issues in politics, but the economic and geopolitical ones too -- nobody thinks it's worth the effort to actually learn up on economics or history, they just pick a side and worship their respective talking heads.
well, im actually quite interessted in stuff like this - but i cant emphasize enough that even if one reads some stuff its very difficult to come to a reasonable view. at least for me, these problems seem so complex that solutions often are on the same level of complexity. i guess its just not popular to really care about it and a simplified approch is ok to go with.
Replies
Oops, did I say that out loud?
Noam Chomsky (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noam_chomsky)
or John Pilger (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Pilger)
Its like watching 2 kids arguing in the playground over whether superman
could kick batman's ass.
I mean, if you want to brow beat each other about your political stance,
you could at least bother to learn enough 'facts' to have a real opinion.
I've considered bringing this up on previous threads where people get
all uppity about whether they are for or against people like Moore.
To be for or against him is like political thumb sucking, he's not important
he's just loud and color coded for the morons to easily grasp.
I figured that bringing this up in a thread that hasn't really gotten too
serious yet might have more success in inspiring people to go and read
up on something real.
Too true. Michael Moore is entertaining but when it comes down to it he has a habit of oversimplifying important issues.
PS. Batman no question.
Mr. Johnson, c'mon! Who are these people?
John Pilger
:: Small aside: Jerry Mander btw came from a background of television advertising, before realizing its "inherent evil" capacity to subliminally influence. He cites numerous scientific studies conducted by corporations, PR firms and governments on how to turn A/V media into a poweful brainwashing tool to impressive effect::
Its an interesting read that makes a lot of points about the psychological & neurological effect of televised/filmed media and its potent ability to distort the perception of reality.
I dont agree with Mr. Mander that Television and film are "inherently evil technologies with zero redeemable value" but his points are very well thought out and quite compelling. Great food for thought.
Having seen a bit of Michael Moore's work...I cant help but watch a frame of his films and wonder...how much is out of context? How much is potently edited, adjusted, music, audio effects, etc to steer the viewer to a predetermined conclusion? I'm not saying he's lying or being totally dishonest, and I appreciate the role of open civilian oversight of our nations issues, but I also realize that he spent months editing dozens or hundreds of hours of footage to get the bits and pieces that hammer home HIS message. Not the reality of what was filmed or what occurred.
Thus, I cannot trust it. It would be like a scientist who performed dozens of experiments, and only reported his successes, thus intentionally distorting the facts by omission. Which is precisely what Michael Moore is most expert at.
I think he brings up valid issues, but I just don't like how he's "EVERYONE IS ENTITLED TO MY OPINION YAAAARRR LISTEN TO MEEEEEE" attitude about it. It's way too in your face.
Exactly. I've never understood why most liberals decry Fox as biased (which it is) and attack Bill O'Reilly and then idolize moore. At least Fox, for example, makes some effort to report the facts, and then skews them as much as possible. If i wanted moore's kind of opinion i could talk to any rebellious teenager and learn just as much.
Real facts are much more interesting than biased, partisan sources' 'he saids he said' facts. They just require actual learning, which sucks, i know.
that validate their opinions enough that we should care and thus they rely on hyperbole
and spin the facts to whatever conclusion suits their agenda.
Thats why i suggested if people wanted some genuine sourced information, read up
on the many books and films Pilger and Chomsky have been involved in for the last 20 years.
What frustrates me is the inherint need of people to be spoon fed 'easy information' and
thats why Moore and O'Reilly will always make money.
Look at how quickly Jonathan (or should I say Jenitha?![thats a lazy spelling joke,
not a masculinity joke]) wanted me to spare him the effort of cutting and pasting Jon Pilger or
Noam Chomsky into a google search tab.
This is how it is with everything, though. Not just the direct social issues in politics, but the economic and geopolitical ones too -- nobody thinks it's worth the effort to actually learn up on economics or history, they just pick a side and worship their respective talking heads.
-caseyjones
You aren't missing much Casey