I've been trying to stay away from this thread because I'm not a big fan of Michael Moore, being the patriot I am, and the fact that this is a HUGE can of worms (thank you Sean). However I felt it better to attempt contributing.

As much as I don't like Michael Moore, he has just as much right to speak, and put forth his opinions just as much as you or I. I agree with Eddie however, that Moore distorts the facts to prove his point and to manipulate his audience. There are those out there that would be "spoon fed" anything that comes out of Moore's mouth as well.

In as much as I identify with the whole "if you don't like what you see here... get the funk out" philosophy (to quote the band Extreme) it's also very much a "Cromagnon" and unintelligent response. We may not like the views of some of the people around us (Michael Moore in this case) but we need to remember that Moore is an American as well. Which brings me to my point. While we love to be individuals, and celebrate that fact, we also need to remember that we as individuals are part of a greater whole of the United States Of America. If we don't learn to come together as a comunity, and as a country, an old addage "united we stand... divided we fell" will be the inscription on the epitaph of America's tomb. As a country that celebrates our independance and individuality, and as much as we "preach" that we should be accepting of people of all races, creeds, colors and religions, we as Americans don't "practice" that philosophy as well as we'd like to think we do.

It's unfortunate that there are those people that would blindly accept things that Moore would say, or for that matter, what Limbaugh would say. We all have to be responsible and research versus be reactionary with information we receive.

So that's my contribution to the can. Hopefully it's an objective attempt at sealing it.

- Josh :)

I can accept his narrative or point of view with an open mind, but if you purposely leave out anything that could possibly contradict or impose a second thought you have no right making such a film in the first place. Support your ideas with facts, don't avoid contradiction.

I mean... the portrayal of Iraq being a happy go lucky place with the kids flying their kites and all of the sudden America comes in and it's raining chaos from the skies. I love how he neglects to mention the fact that the buildings within the shots used were saddam and military related right?

Personally I just see him as a big attention whore. I'm willing to assume if these invasions hadn't taken place he would be making a film on why the Bush Administration is sitting on their asses doing nothing.

Tim,

The difference between ABC/CBS/NBC/The New York Times/etc. and Michael Moore is that the others are "reputable" news sources with their own fact-checkers. Michael Moore is NOT a news source--he's just another guy.

Eddie

mra,
Your statement about negative voting is exactly what I'm talking about. That is why it is so important to endeavor to leave party affiliations out of it. Most people vote for a party and not a candidate which is why we have the pendulum swinging constantly. This is exactly what has lead to the mired-in beauracracy that we call government. If we continue to vote for a party we will have political puppet after political puppet holding the highest offices in the nation.

As for the "social programs," remember that more social programs mean more committees. More committees mean more politician involvement. More politician involvement means more money greasing the wheels. Social programs are cyclically beneficial for politicians; they look good to the public and allow for further lining of politicians' pockets.

Though my outlook on government and politicians is rather cynical, I feel it is America's apathy that has lead to this. To say that people "just aren't interested in or don't have time for the issues" doesn't make for much of an argument. It's been said that the easiest way for evil to prevail is for good men to do nothing. Inaction is not an alternative, it is a way of affiliating one's self with and condoning the very thing that can take away freedom and destroy Democracy itself. The other examples of good citizenry you listed are more than appropriate, but when filling out a ballot is easier than any of these, why is voting the first to be tossed to the wayside by the public?

I understand that Democracy lends itself to choice, but choosing apathy is a choice against the very tenets of Democracy. More on that later.

Sasha,
To answer your response from earlier, though voting is considered a right and a franchisement, I feel that the citizenry has a responsibility to vote. The examples from other countries that you put forth show just how important it is to vote, and it is a pity that when voting is so easy here in comparison to other countries, American citizens choose to disenfranchise themselves. Though a privelege, I view voting as a sacred civic duty and obligation. Since we have the right to choose, it's all the more imperative that we as Americans realize what consequences those choices have for us. If you choose to break the law, you have consequences to face. Similarly, if you choose not to vote, you choose not to be heard, not to be represented, but to have your choices made for you.

In order to fully realize our privelege, we must realize that we are priveleged in the first place. The overwhelming feeling in the US seems to be one of entitlement, not gratitude which leads to inaction and resentment. But that can all change if people actually started to give a flip and do something. Maybe some day.

Sasha, it's great to have an outside perspective to help us all here realize just how blessed we are to live under such freedom. It's easy for us to lose perspective when we don't see first-hand what our situation could be. Thanks for your input and for keeping us grounded!

Sean (...I'm grounded...grounded from the TV...can't go out with my friends...)

P.S.: y'know, I'm gonna bow out on the rest of this thread as I'm sure it's painfully obvious to everyone that I could go on about this subject forever. Thanks to everyone for the great discussion! Once again, you all ROCK!

"It's unfortunate that there are those people that would blindly accept things that Moore would say, or for that matter, what Limbaugh would say." --Josh

May I add: Or what Mr. Bush would say. Fact is, everybody in power lies. It's always been this way. At least Moore's exaggerations, distortions, or truths (take them as you will) don't get tens of thousands of people killed.

John

The truth of the matter is is that Michael Moore whether you love him or hate him is out there speaking his mind, which is what most Americans do not do. It is these people, conservative or liberal, who become the touchstone for change. It always takes these kind of individuals to create an atmosphere in which people debate the issues and then react. There are a number of them out there; most recently, Mel Gibson with his Passion of the Christ and his telling of the crucifixion story. Michael Moore is no more or no less. Take what truths you want away with you. The issue is is that it being presented to you. :D

John,

No matter whom you put within the remark I made, the sentence directly following it, still applies.

While President Bush has made both good and bad decisions, I don't think the decision to go to Iraq (which is what I assume you mean by the "tens of thousands of people killed" statement) was a bad one. Bad things have ensued as a direct result of going to war with Iraq, but that's how war works. You'll never have a clean war. It's sad that anyone has to die on either side of a war. But I ask you this. If we had taken "no action", and left Sadam in place, where do you think we'd be right now? How would the people of Iraq be better off with Sadam still in power? While the Iraqi people no longer want us in Iraq, they didn't want Sadam either... nor do they want the terrorists that are still today killing both Iraqi people, as well as soldiers. I don't believe in "blind belief" of anyone. As I mentioned, it's each individual person's responsibility to research, and get as much information (about any given topic) from as many sources as possible, and only then make the best decision they can. To react to something based off of what "one" person says about it is a dangerous prospect, and can cause the loss of life(lives). We elect people into office hoping that they (and their advisors) will be able to make the "tough" decisions. However, when they make a bad decision (even though it might be a large one) we can't seek to boot them out of office every time they do. I'm sure President Bush made the best decision he could (concerning Iraq) based on the information he was given by our intelligence agencies, and his advisors in his cabinet.

I think the whole debate on Weapons of Mass Destruction is pointless. The fact that Hans Blix and his teams weren't able to find "actual" WMD is beside the point. That country is so large, Sadam's stock piles could have been moved ANYWHERE within the country, or out of country for that matter. We DID find evidence that Sadam was refining uranium, as well as factories that had "recently" been moved that were creating chemicals for war. Sadam had plenty of time to move his stockpiles wherever he needed to.

To get back to the original topic of this thread, I'm sure Michael Moore's "film" will be one sided, and as far from objective as you can get, to manipulate you into thinking in one direction. I will see his film in an effort to have a more objective opinion, but will take it with a grain of salt. To call this movie a documentary is a farce in my opinion. "Documentary" is defined as "Presenting facts objectively without editorializing or inserting fictional matter, as in a book or film" - Dictionary.com. Moore has made his political views known, as well as his opinions about President Bush, so why should we suddenly believe that he'll objectively present his film to us?

- Josh

John,

I agree with you wholeheartedly. People in power lie, including the news media ( did not anyone remember the movie "The Insider"?). What you are saying is pretty much the same point I was trying to get accross to Eddie. Only problem is, I don't find the news media as "Reputable" sources any more than anyone else in power. After all, the news media is obviously owned by very rich people which equates to people with power, no?

I think what it comes down to, everyone needs to develop their own beliefs and oppinions based on what they believe as fact. Even when someone points out a fact there's always someone in the wings to disprove them. It's funny how I've watched Bill O'Riley accuse other news medias and news papers accross the nation of mistruths, yet he himself has twisted facts for his own glory. So, you know what I did? I just stopped watching and listening to the crap. Now days it's like everyone wants you to take a side. With that being said, I take MY side. ;)

Tim.

Josh,

While we disagree about America's going to war in Iraq, we seem to be in agreement on one aspect of Moore. He is not a "documentarian" in any sense of the word. As I said in my review of "Bowling for Columbine," there was a question in my mind as to whether that movie should have won an Oscar for Best Documentary when it really wasn't a documentary at all.

But, then, to be fair to Moore, he steadfastly refuses to be labeled a documentarian, anyway. He calls himself, properly so, a propagandist. He has a clear agenda he's pushing, and he isn't afraid to push it hard. That seems no different to me than what Mr. Bush is doing or what Clinton did before him. Politicians have their own agendas, and they aren't afraid of telling people about them in half-truths. It's why everybody should hear and see many sides of every issue. It's why free and open discussion and debate are so important in a democracy.

John

John,

We are definately in agreement on Moore. However we're also in agreement on seeing all possible sides of a given issue. Doing so obviously gives you a more objective perspective. I should appologize for barking out my last post. I didn't mean for it to come off like that. It just seems to me that all too often these days people are pessimistic about "anyone in power" as Tim put it (no offense Tim). It's very easy to fall into that kind of mind set. It's easy to distrust people. I just refuse to be a cynic. I think most people are good at heart, and are trying to do the right thing. Moore on the other hand (in my opinion) is one of the cynical people. Which is usually true of any extremist, or terrorist faction as well. If we stop believing that people are basically good at heart, and are trying their best to "do right", then we should lower our flag in retreat and give up then and there. If you live your life in fear or suspicion of everyone (or everyone in power, as it were), you're not living. I believe in giving people the benefit of the doubt. In any case, I'm going off on a tangent here.

I will give Michael Moore credit as a brilliant marketer though. He's pulling a "Howard Stern", where the people whom love him are going to see his movies, and the people whom hate him are going to see his movies. You can't get much better than that in marketing a product! But that's all I'll give him.

- Josh