Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

I've actually seen Moore's movie, and it's deceptive and inflamatory. Somehow that fact that there is plenty of stuff there for a principled person with concern for the truth to object to hasn't stopped some of Moore's critics from just making stuff up. I've been surprised at the extent to which this pattern is repeated among Moor's critics. It's stupid and counterproductive. A disciplined and honest look at the movie would show multiple errors of omission, deception through implication, and abuse of timelines. Somehow that's just not enough. People have to make stuff up about Moore hating America (hint: If you hate a country you don't try to improve it - being wrong about what constitutes "improve" does not change this fact), along with a litany of fabrications too long to waste time on.

Moore would be a non-issue if his enemies weren't so damn eager to get into a competition over who can distort and smear the most effectively. It's increasingly apparent that indifference to the truth is absolutely no obstacle to being taken seriously, and that's true across the whole political spectrum. If the only way a person can deal with opposing political views is to smear and distort, that speaks volumes about both the character and the intellectual capacity of the attacker. This applies equally to Moore and his most vociferous critics.

Posted by Andrew Case at July 21, 2004 07:33 AM

I don't know if Mike hates America, Andrew, but based on a lot of his comments, he certainly hates a lot of Americans. What are we supposed to think about someone who considers people in Iraq who plant roadside bombs and behead people in order to reinstitute a brutal dictatorship equivalent to the Minutemen?

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 21, 2004 07:43 AM

Charitably? That he's an amoral opportunist.

I prefer to think of him as a traitor, but that's just me.

Posted by Jason Bontrager at July 21, 2004 07:50 AM

I won't defend Moore - he's a rabble rouser and a liar. My point is merely that he can be exposed as such without resorting to deception, distortion, or fabrication. In fact, going after Moore based on his verifiable and inarguable distortions is much more effective than going after him based on arguable errors or matters of interpretation.

I'm not familiar with the minutemen quote, so I can't comment. I suspect that, being Moore, he shot his mouth off with an odious comparison. On the other hand, I believe that some of the attacks on US troops are being carried out by Iraqis acting out of an instinctual desire to defend their homeland against a foreign invader rather than out of ideological commitment to either Baathism or militant Islam. I wouldn't compare these people to minutemen, but I think they could reasonably be called patriots. Unfortunately the spin, smear, and distort imperative of the political media insists that any attempt to distinguish differing motivations among US opponents is tantamount to alliance with Al Qaeda, so perhaps I should start growing a beard. At least the turban will hide my bald spot.

This is exactly my point about why Moore and his most aggressive critics are doing a bad thing. By distorting the truth as part of a political game they make it harder to have a rational discussion about what really is going on. The situation in Iraq and in the larger war is complex and multifaceted. Those who insist that its simple end up arguing for policy prescriptions that threaten to make things worse rather than better.

Posted by Andrew Case at July 21, 2004 09:13 AM

Andrew,

You're arguing that an elephant is a mouse because they have the same skin color. It doesn't matter if you can find a detail of Moore's that is technically correct or even that opponents are over zealous in their opposition.

What matters is the blatant lies and distortions are being used to throw mud at America and it's citizens. People get angry when that happens... He deserves to have the light shine brightly on his fraud and sedition so he can crawl back into the crack he crawled out of. He deserves to have his fans mocked for the morons they are. The elites that support him should lose whatever prestige they have... they shouldn't be guiding the laws and minds of the nation.

Why give this guy ANY credibility?

Posted by ken anthony at July 21, 2004 11:24 AM

Ken - pointing out absurd statements by Moore's critics is not a defense of Moore. Please be clear here - I'm not defending Moore. I'm attacking the deceptive statements made by a certain segment of his critics. People are saying "This liar looks to me like he hates america and this other liar looks to me like he loves america" as if that is somehow important. They're both liars. Who gives a crap what they think? OTOH, if one liar is to be cut any slack, why not the other liar?

This statement: "What matters is the blatant lies and distortions are being used to throw mud at America and it's citizens." is incomprehensible unless you assume that criticism of the administration is criticism of the country. It's not. Unlike many of the loudest of Moore's critics, I've seen his film. It's a vicious and deceptive attack on Bush and his administration. It's not an attack on America - the difference is not subtle.

Posted by Andrew Case at July 21, 2004 03:20 PM

Andrew, I haven't seen the film (though I've read the transcript), and I'm willing to accept your assessment that it's not anti-America per se, but he does have a long history of saying things that are anti-America (as it exists today) and anti-Americans, particularly to draw applause when abroad. And I actually know (or knew--I haven't had any contact with him in over thirty years) him personally (we grew up a year and about six miles apart), and this is nothing new.

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 21, 2004 03:26 PM

Rand - I agree with your assessment of Moore - he consistently takes a worst-case reading of US actions, all the more so if the administration in question is Republican. I don't know that I'd call him anti-American in the strong sense (as in anti-semitic, where there's no change in the object of hostility that will appease the hater), but I think it's fair to call him anti-American in the weak sense (in order for America to meet with his approval it would have to change beyond recognition).

My objection is merely to mischaracterization of his film, particularly deceptive mischaracterization. A thoughtful analysis could destroy his film without engaging in the same sorts of behavior Moore does. In fact, such an analysis already exists in the form of the fifty six deceptions website (ironically) referenced at the end of Bolt's piece.

I'm particularly sensitive to the pollution of the political memesphere right now because of the upcoming election. We'll see quantities of bullshit sufficient to fertilize the Sahara coming from both sides. It seems to me the duty of patriots to resist this tide, doomed though the effort may be.

Posted by Andrew Case at July 21, 2004 07:17 PM

...I think it's fair to call him anti-American in the weak sense (in order for America to meet with his approval it would have to change beyond recognition).

Well, that seems to me the same sense that Al Qaeda and bin Laden are anti-American. ;-)

Posted by Rand Simberg at July 21, 2004 07:26 PM

Lord Hee Haw
Tokyo Rose
Mecca Mike

'nuff said

Posted by DanM at July 21, 2004 07:56 PM

Andrew Case wrote

People have to make stuff up about Moore hating America (hint: If you hate a country you don't try to improve it - being wrong about what constitutes "improve" does not change this fact), along with a litany of fabrications too long to waste time on.

Hint: a movie full of deceptions is by no stretch of the imagination an attempt to "improve" something. Any claim to the contrary is simply not dealing with reality, either intentionally or due to mental illness. I guess it's just too bad that Moore has to hurt America to get to the Bush bogeyman.

And here's something I didn't make up. This is what he wrote on his website on 9/12/2001 and later courageously removed:

Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California - these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!

I voted for Bush, ergo Moore wouldn't have minded as much if I died. Ergo, Moore hates me personally and all Republicans. Technically this isn't the same as hating America. I can't tell you how much better I feel now that you've explained that.

From the garbage dump

The Iraqis who have risen up against the occupation are not "insurgents" or "terrorists" or "The Enemy." They are the REVOLUTION, the Minutemen, and their numbers will grow -- and they will win.

Posted by Jim C. at July 21, 2004 08:59 PM

a movie full of deceptions is by no stretch of the imagination an attempt to "improve" something

Nor is a speech full of deceptions, but that doesn't stop either of the candidates from doing exactly that, and calling it an attempt at improvement. All I'm arguing for is a common and bipartisan criterion to judge liars, be they film makers or politicians.

I voted for Bush, ergo Moore wouldn't have minded as much if I died

So Moore is a asshole. No argument. Ditto those who imply (or state) that the life of someone who voted the other way is less valuable than yours. Assholes are not a partisan phenomenon.

Posted by Andrew Case at July 22, 2004 11:03 AM

free poker Have a nice day! :)

Posted by free poker at February 7, 2006 09:37 PM

Post a comment