posted
A minor point really, as I've never seen Apocalypto, but he says that he doesn't "watch Michael Moore's movies or read Al Franken's books, but that's because Moore's movies are nothing but hatred for everybody."
Al Franken still is funny when he actually tries to be, but mostly he's in for politics and not comedy.
As for Michael Moore, well he admits to never having seen them but still passes judgement, from what, word of mouth? I've seen Bowling for Columbine and I've seen Fahrenheit 9/11. Bowling for Columbine was NOT a hate fest, and calling it that ignores the good points addressed in the movie, and I think proves he never saw it, and doesn't really know what he's talking about. F9/11 I have trouble defending. It has a LOT of good points in it, but it's nowhere near the usefulness of BfC.
Don't get me wrong, I'm NOT a big fan of Michael Moore. I wish he'd just shut up a lot of the time, as he might be supporting something I support as well, but usually his vitriol just gets in the way. I'd call him the Liberal equivilant of Ann Coulter, but that woman is so vile as to have no comparison on any point in the political spectrum.
Fairly minor nitpicking I suppose, but it surprised me that he'd say something like that, despite the general dislike of Michael Moore, let's at least know what we're reviling.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Michael Moore hates everyone. He liked his hometown for one thing... And I would rather listen to him instead of Ann Coulter. i liked Al Franken's book. It was easier to read than Sean Hannity's books. SH kept using the word "evil" too much and it was annoying me.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhwan, I agree with you and think you make good points.
I was however glad to see him give the movie a good review. We had a thread in here a while back about the movie, and I think his comments go well with it.
Posts: 176 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote: Here's where I plead guilty to historical snobbery. I don't believe that all cultures are of equal value. (Neither do the multiculturalists -- they believe that all cultures are of equal value except Western democratic and Judeo-Christian culture, which is evil in every way.)
I find this a strange stereotypical jab. The official government policy of Canada *is* multiculturalism and I haven't really seen evidence that either of them have been treated unfairly.
Keep in mind that I also, do not believe that all cultures have equal value. Yet I find that the government goes (too far) out of its way not to offend anyone, Judeo-Christian, aboriginal, or not.
For example, you should see how sugar-coated and even-handed the exhibit on the colonization of Canada in the Canadian War Museum is.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I suppose OSC could written in italics, for the logic impaired, that where someone's art does not espouse their opinions, he is not as concerned about what their opinion is. Your nitpick totally misrepresented his point, which is that Jane Fonda is hawt. Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I love OSC's writing - I really do. But I hate it when he takes these bizarre potshots at people in his columns. I wish he wouldn't. It seems so small and petty. It's alienating. I want the guy who wrote all those books I loved to be warm and open and nice and big. And I'm sure he is in his personal life. The one time I met him he was just about the nicest, most encouraging guy I could have imagined. I just don't know why he always attacks people in his columns.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should OSC have to be what you expect him to be?
And for that matter, if you don't enjoy certain aspects of his columns, why read them? Nobody is making you.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
It's interesting to see another person's perspective because it's not mine... But, it is frustrating when some people make BROAD SWEEPING STATEMENTS. It makes me insane.
There are only some aspects of Christianity I dislike, but these aspects weren't originally in Christianity, some were a product of people's culture, sort of like FMG and Islam. Muhammed never said anything about it, but it was in the cultures that converted to Islam. At least that's how I see it. I like Christianity in it's purest form, but conservative Christianity scares me.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by aragorn64: Why should OSC have to be what you expect him to be?
And for that matter, if you don't enjoy certain aspects of his columns, why read them? Nobody is making you.
So columnists only want people who agree with them to read their columns? What's the point of even having them then? Preaching to the choir might reinforce their beliefs, but it doesn't do much for the process.
I read OSC's columns because I think he's a smart guy and I like his books, so I have a level of respect for his opinion. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree with him does it? Do I have to stay quiet when I disagree with a columnist?
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I read about a third of Fahrenheit 9/11 (transcript). It was on Internet. I don't know how OSC got his info, but that's how I got mine on that movie. It was a full 13 lines before it got to anything that could be objectively called true or false, but as soon as it did, it was false.
There's another thing I've seen reported in various places on Bowling for Columbine, that I confirmed just now based on transcripts. The report was that Moore spliced together different parts of Charlton Heston's speech to radically change the meaning. It's a new art form! Cutting away from the speaker so you can splice his words together in new order to make him say something he didn't say. But it's a deceptive art form.
quote: Moore then cuts to Heston noting that Denver's mayor asked NRA not to come, and shows Heston replying "I said to the Mayor: Don't come here? We're already here!" as if in defiance.
Actually, Moore put an edit right in the middle of the first sentence! Heston was actually saying (with reference Heston's own WWII vet status) "I said to the mayor, well, my reply to the mayor is, I volunteered for the war they wanted me to attend when I was 18 years old. Since then, I've run small errands for my country, from Nigeria to Vietnam. I know many of you here in this room could say the same thing."
Moore cuts it after "I said to the Mayor" and attaches a sentence from the end of the next paragraph: "As Americans, we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." It thus becomes an arrogant "I said to the Mayor: as American's we're free to travel wherever we want in our broad land." He hides the deletion by cutting to footage of protestors and a still photo of the Mayor as Heston says "I said to the mayor," cutting back to Heston's face at "As Americans."
Moore has Heston then triumphantly announce "Don't come here? We're already here!" Actually, that sentence is clipped from a segment five paragraphs farther on in the speech. Again, Moore uses an editing trick to cover the doctoring. As Heston speaks, the video switches momentarily to a pan of the crowd, then back to Heston; the pan shot covers the doctoring.
What Heston actually is saying in "We're already here" was not the implied defiance, but rather this:
"NRA members are in city hall, Fort Carson, NORAD, the Air Force Academy and the Olympic Training Center. And yes, NRA members are surely among the police and fire and SWAT team heroes who risked their lives to rescue the students at Columbine.
Don't come here? We're already here. This community is our home. Every community in America is our home. We are a 128-year-old fixture of mainstream America. The Second Amendment ethic of lawful, responsible firearm ownership spans the broadest cross section of American life imaginable.
So, we have the same right as all other citizens to be here. To help shoulder the grief and share our sorrow and to offer our respectful, reassured voice to the national discourse that has erupted around this tragedy."
The amazing thing to me is that, in the main, the left -- based on Moore's place on the platform of the '04 convention, and repeated comments I hear from liberals on how good these films are -- applauds these deceptions rather than treating them as an embarrassment.
[ January 11, 2007, 11:25 PM: Message edited by: Will B ]
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
"So columnists only want people who agree with them to read their columns? What's the point of even having them then? Preaching to the choir might reinforce their beliefs, but it doesn't do much for the process.
I read OSC's columns because I think he's a smart guy and I like his books, so I have a level of respect for his opinion. But that doesn't mean I can't disagree with him does it? Do I have to stay quiet when I disagree with a columnist? "
Certainly not -- I don't think I was implying that. But I think there should be a level of...decency preserved on said columnists own website. You know, the one that he pays for so we can all come here and post on (and criticize him on, more often than not.)
Now I'll be considered a jerk and a suck up. Go ahead, consider me that. At least you aren't coming into my house, insulting my decor, and then using the bathroom and the fridge on the way out.
Posts: 290 | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I think there should be a level of...decency preserved on said columnists own website. You know, the one that he pays for so we can all come here and post on (and criticize him on, more often than not.)
I don't think anybody's being indecent. More often than not, I praise the crap out of the man. He is deserving of decency, and he is deserving of praise. His books have had a huge effect on my life. He is a great writer and a very nice man and I have no doubt that his niceness extends far beyond what I know of it.
quote:Now I'll be considered a jerk and a suck up. Go ahead, consider me that. At least you aren't coming into my house, insulting my decor, and then using the bathroom and the fridge on the way out.
No one has called you anything, and that analogy isn't quite fair.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:But I think there should be a level of...decency preserved on said columnists own website.
Absolutely. But what you suggested isn't decency; it's patronizing and hero-worship. OSC's a big boy, and I'd guess he'd rather honest praise and the honest criticism that comes with it rather than hollow praise and swallowed critiques. But maybe not.
And you're right, I have seen people go overboards with the criticism in the past*. I've also seen them go overboard with the praise.
He's only human. If he's right more than he's wrong I think he's doing pretty well.
*And when that does happen they're usually immediately called on it by no less than 4 regulars.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Fahrenheit 9/11 was a good idea but poorly executed. Especially in the world we live in, lies and half truths only come back to haunt us. The best case scenario is to tell the truth and be right. Moore could have done both but chose to go for the absolute most dramatic route possible, which would've made him more like Jon Stewart, except Stewart never pretends that his half lies half realities are ALL true, he pretends they are ALL jokes.
Bowling for Columbine had a few errors, but the messages about the media in there are well worth hearing, and for that reason alone I'm glad he made the movie. I'm sandwiched between his hometown Flint, and Detroit, and while I don't live there, I know the types of things he is describing, and the news articles that he splices in are the local news I watch every night.
But I absolutely HATE blanket statements like the one OSC made. You can be perfectly fair and accurate by being specific, and still get your point across. I don't think it's disrespectful for me to say that. I don't think all OSC expects is for us to heap praise on him for his articles, he's not that into himself.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Neither do the multiculturalists -- they believe that all cultures are of equal value except Western democratic and Judeo-Christian culture, which is evil in every way.
B.S.
Hmm, I mean, I am sorry to have to point out that that our host is mistaken.
Multiculturalism is firmly rooted in Western Liberal Democracy. Western Liberal Democracy requires that people be allowed to express themselves. What the French, for instance, do not understand, or choose not to understand, is that it is the right of a person to wear a headscarf or a turban or a crucifix is a form of free speech. Futhrermore, it is an action voluntarily undertaken by an individual in the pursuit of happiness which harms no one.
That is multiculturalism at its most basic and least controversial. The Constitution of the United States and the Constitutions or common law of every Liberal Democracy guarantees the right to be a member of a culture.
There is a second form of multiculturalism which is rooted in necessity rather than ideals, and that involves censorship. The only form of a censorship I am in favor of is the prohibition of "hate speech." I am not by nature in favor of any type of censorship, but I cannot ignore the fact the genocides have occurred and that they have occurred too frequently to ignore those who incite them. The genocide in Rwanda might have happened without the work of Radio Télévision Libre des Mille Collines and Georges Ruggiu, but their contributions were real and deadly. It is the responsibility of a Liberal Democracy to ensure that the will of the majority is not executed and the expense of the fundamental rights of any minority.
As for the Palestinians, I confess myself to be a pro-Palestinian and a supporter of their rights, to OSC this probably makes me an anti-Semite. I do not, of course, support Hamas, nor do any Westerners that I know of (I am sure they exist, but they are not in the mainstream as OSC would seem to like.) Also, like most Westerners, I am not overly found of Fatah but would support it over Hamas and the Palestinian National Initiative over either.
Indeed, it is entirely possible, and probable that I would not even support Palestinian statehood had the Israelis handled the insurgency better. To my mind, indeed, it is the Israeli government that is strongest in arguing for Palestinian independence. They have routinely acted as if they were at war with the Palestinians rather than in opposition to certain criminal organization. If the Israelis did not bulldoze the houses of Palestinians whose only crime is being related to a criminal; if the Israelis enforced the rule of law in the West Bank instead of just mounting punitive raids; if the Israeli Defense force followed its own codes; if Israel arrested Palestinian leaders rather than shooting them; and if Israel had not a history of dramatic and violent over reaction resulting in thousands of needless casualties of whom only a small fraction were guilty of any crime: then I might be less sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. It was said of Yasser Arafet that he never missed an opportunity to miss an opportunity and it was true, but Israel has lost thousands of good opportunities to improve its reputation and has squandered all but a handful.
Perhaps it is wrong to say that I am pro-Palestinian. There are factions within Palestine and within Israel who have consistentantly cried for peace and understanding and there are factions within Israel and Palestine that have called for war and hatred. It is an appalling insight into the human condition and the state of affairs in the Near East that the later faction has constantly triumphed at the polls in both countries. The Winds of change blow on, and the current generation of Israelis are largely tired of war. But the current generation of Palestinians chafe under oppression. The time for resolution is now, before the whole area is forever ripped apart by an explosion in violence.
On a lighter note: as for Michael Moore, he was, at one point a funny and gifted comedian with a political slant. Much of his early humor was aimed at himself and fellow Leftists as well as at Conservatives. He admits in Stupid White Men
quote: White people scare me. People find this surprising as I am a white, but, you see, I scare me.
In the same book he also purposed reforming the Democratic-Republican party so that there would be a party which represented the American people. He also purposed that donkeys be bred with elephants to entertain the American people. Michael Moore's critics often forget that he did not, at least at first, take himself too seriously.
quote: "Oppositor"? "Consersavadorism"? Are we now so desperate for bad things to say about MM that we are making up new words to describe him?
From the Wikipedia talk page.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
You seem to be conflating multiculturalism with free speech, and hate speech with genocide. The connections aren't explicit.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Multiculturalism, at its basis, is about free speech. Or rather free expression. The right to wear distinctive clothing, eat special food, etc. is a form of free expresion.
Hate speech is not the same thing as genocide, but one can lead to the other, and it is for that reason most countries have laws against "hate speech" or similar.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
So OSC's feelings about Michael Moore are parallel with Synesthesia's feelings about conservative Christianity?
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Wait, why am I being singled out? *hates being singled out* There are clear reasons why conservativey Christianity frightens me but I wont' get into it. As for Michael Moore, you can find grains of truth and lies in just about everything... I try to look at things from all perspectives and to do research before I come to conclusions.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think OSC -- or college faculty, or other people using the term "multicultural" -- use it to mean free expression. But if it did, I'd be all for it.
Based on the article, OSC uses "multicultural" to mean a perspective that all cultures, possibly except ours, are of equal value.
Here's Wikipedia's take on it.
Multiculturalism is an ideology advocating that society should consist of, or at least allow and include, distinct cultural groups, with equal status.
posted
I read that definition as basicaly being what I said that different cultures should be allowed in one state. Many multiculturalist go further and suggest that they should be encouraged, that co-existence with diffusion is better than total assimilation. Muliculturalism is not an ideology, it is a pragmatic response to fact. Anyone who claims that Western culture is inferior to other cultures is not a multiculturalist.
Take the U.K. or Canada, multicultural states and proud of it, but neither would consider yielding to proposals to allow Sharia law in Muslim communities. Canada is by far the best example of a multicultural state and is also a thriving Western Democracy.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Your definition is unconventional, but it makes more sense than the conventional one.
Still, it isn't reasonable to call OSC's remarks "BS" because he uses the words with their conventional meanings.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Multiculturalism is an ideology advocating that society should consist of, or at least allow and include, distinct cultural groups, with equal status.
Then this definition sounds pretty unconventional:
quote:OSC uses "multicultural" to mean a perspective that all cultures, possibly except ours, are of equal value.
posted
I'm very confused about what that has to do with what I said. I'm not comparing "equal status" and "equal value"; I'm comparing "equal status" with "except ours" and "evil in every way".
I'm sure you understood that.
About "freedom of expression" I said nothing at all. I specifically chose not to weigh in on that aspect of the conversation.
Posts: 2267 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
If you want to get into fine shades of meaning, and how OSC used them, you'll have to take it up with OSC. But it was blindingly obvious that he didn't mean "freedom of expression," which is why I drew the distinction. That's all.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
I don't think you're statements on WLD and France, well, Europe in general really fit. France, and most Euro nations AREN'T the multicultural fantasy lands that the US is. They're Franco-centric, or Anglo-centric, or Helleni-Centric, etc, etc. They don't like outsiders, which is why you're seeing all these laws cropping up.
I don't get where you think that Europe is some center of multicultural acceptance. By and large they aren't. American is fairly unique in that. Don't get me wrong, we're xenophobic ourselves at times, but we're still for more accepting than the next guy.
Posts: 21898 | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Comes partly from being an immigrant country, I'd suppose. I think Oz and the Great White North are the same.
Posts: 1877 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:As for the Palestinians, I confess myself to be a pro-Palestinian and a supporter of their rights
Of course, you also support locking up a whole bunch of them who regularly engage in hate speech, including most of their leaders and many of their newspaper editors.
quote:to OSC this probably makes me an anti-Semite
Do you not feel the need to support what you say?
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Lyrhawn, that is almost exactly the oposite of what I said. I do not find continental Europe to be a"center of multicultural acceptance" or anything remotely similar. Look what I said about the French:
quote: What the French, for instance, do not understand, or choose not to understand, is that it is the right of a person to wear a headscarf or a turban or a crucifix is a form of free speech.
I would disagree with you about Britain, as of know, although there are movements to make it less multicultural.
quote: Do you not feel the need to support what you say?
OSC has already accused those who "claim they're... supporting Palestinian rights" of being "far more anti-Semitic than [Mel Gibson]."
quote: Of course, you also support locking up a whole bunch of them who regularly engage in hate speech, including most of their leaders and many of their newspaper editors.
No contradiction there. I have already stated that I dislike their leadership.
Posts: 211 | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
