C-Span 10/17/04

After they showed David Horowitz fuming his partisan paranoid gibberish, they went to a Michael Moore rally at UCLA.  C-Span forewarned they intended to shoot the whole rally, but Moore's security forced all cameras to shut off after 15 minutes.  Why?  Moore showed up looking bloated and pasty, bellowing into the mike and crassly lampooning the right-wing.  Now, I've got no problem with crass lampoons, as long as they're done well.  Moore's wasn't.  He was yelling about "the Republicans are so angry 'cuz they know it's over.  They're like, 'Oh no! the chicks and the f*gs are taking over...and they can't shut up about Bill Clinton...even worse HILLARY, aaahhhhh HILLARY'S coming back as the first woman president! Ohhhh Nooooo!" 
The C-Span announcer then cut in and explained, "Moore's security staff asked us to end our taping at this point, citing Moore's ill health."  I dunno about "ill health," but to me he seemed like he was wasted on booze and pills.  Either that, or he's just going bonkers.
I miss the old Michael Moore.  I miss the Michael Moore who made "Roger & Me."  That's the Michael Moore I loved.  He reminds me of a great rock musician who got too famous, gained too many syncophants, made too much money, did too many drugs, endured too many scandals, and is living a love-hate relationship with fame and infamy.  You know the rising star you fell in love with sixteen years ago, when you bought his first album, is still there under all the money, dope, and dissolution, and you wish he could emerge again...and, deep inside, so does the rock star.  Think of anyone from The Rolling Stones to The Who to Pink Floyd to Michael Jackson, or Boy George.  It's a familiar sad story.
One of Moore's biggest detractor (who I shall not name) claims Moore is suffering from a "narcissistic personality disorder."  I don't know if Moore has this exact diagnosis, but there's Moore is definitely exhibiting many traits of the disorder.

I'm not bashing Michael Moore.  I have been a fan of his ever since I saw "Roger & Me" in 1990.  Right now, however, he is embroiled in high profile controversy and has earned the hatred of the right previously reserved for the Clintons.  They will do anything in their power to destroy Moore.  His credibility is indeed questionable on some issues and his documentary techniques are suspect.  Thus, he needs to BE CAREFUL.  He needs to dot all the i's and cross all the t's.  He cannot afford to be unable to back up his claims with hard facts.  He cannot afford to come across like a fat slob and a clown.  He needs to SHAPE UP!  To my dismay, he seems to be drifting farther into boorishness and mania. 

What I saw on C-Span yesterda was nothing short of ghastly.  If he keeps up those shennanigans, Michael Moore could be "finished" within a year.  As I watched David Horowitz spewing his venom about the Democratic party being exactly the same as the suicide bombers, I was reminded that the Right holds no standards for their own when it comes to propaganda, lies, and hatred.  While Moore may have narcissistic personality disorder, I am certain the Right has a kind of narcissistic personality disorder en mass.  On their terms, the whole rest of the world is out to "get" the conservative white Christian American.  That ain't no rhetorical slam, they really believe it.  The mainstream media, including C-Span, gives them equal time.  The American Enterprise Institute and the Heritage Foundation churn out reactionary horrors, and the press laps them up.  The wite supremicist publishers Regnery publish book after book of right-wing bile without let up.  The mainstream media is corporate-controlled and will not pitch in to discredit the extreme right the way they will the far left.  Michael Moore is one of the far right's biggest (no pun intended) targets, and he's a sitting duck.

C-Span 10/17/04

One of Moore's biggest detractor (who I shall not name) claims Moore is suffering from a "narcissistic personality disorder."
It's not ME...I'm only the most "Legendary"  :D.....seriously though...I hope, just like I did for Bill Clinton, that he will be alright.

It's not ME...I'm only the most "Legendary"  :D.....seriously though...I hope, just like I did for Bill Clinton, that he will be alright.

Bill Clinton's health was never in question until his heart surgery this year.  Prior to that, he was like any other red blooded American male, he had a big healthy appetite for cheap food and cheap women (McDonald's, Monica, Gennifer with a "G," and Paula Jones). 
His real problem was the not his speeches or his policies, but the sick-o right-wing goonsquad that tried to drive him out of office for eight years!

I didn't see this report, but have see Moore's 3 most famous films, Roger..., Bowling..., and Farenhight..., and think that he is a genious of "political/documentary journalism".  Bias?  You bet.  But the shots of Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam etc were not doctored, and are one set of the facts.  You can dismiss his interpretation of the facts, but than it is incombant on you to provide another interpretation.

I remember seeing his show "TV Nation" in 1994 when I was 14 years old, and thinking it was absolutely brilliant. That was the first time I ever heard of the guy.

But you know, ever since his speech at last year's Oscars, I think he's kind of become a bit arrogant and full of himself. He's pretentiously appointed himself as the critic of the Bush administration, and it's a role he comes off as rather pompous in.

And he's always been accused of distorting facts and events, even back when he did Roger & Me.

I remember seeing his show "TV Nation" in 1994 when I was 14 years old, and thinking it was absolutely brilliant. That was the first time I ever heard of the guy.

But you know, ever since his speech at last year's Oscars, I think he's kind of become a bit arrogant and full of himself. He's pretentiously appointed himself as the critic of the Bush administration, and it's a role he comes off as rather pompous in.

And he's always been accused of distorting facts and events, even back when he did Roger & Me.
Satish! I couldn't agree with you "Moore"...but beware...you will have to pay for your opinion with a ton of back-lash! (But not from me)  ;)

But you know, ever since his speech at last year's Oscars, I think he's kind of become a bit arrogant and full of himself. He's pretentiously appointed himself as the critic of the Bush administration, and it's a role he comes off as rather pompous in.


My thoughts exactly. Up until that speech at the Oscars, I never had a problem with him (I was even planning on seeing Bowling For Columbine...until he opened his mouth :P). Since then though, he's gotten a wee bit out of hand.

His outburst at the Oscars was uncalled for, I agree, but America needs Michael Moore. 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was incredibly manipulative and grossly biased against the Bush administration, but everything in it was fact. It would have been "nice" for him to have presented some balancing arguments, but that wasn't his intention. Moore's a dissident, and I think America needs high-profile dissidents.

His outburst at the Oscars was uncalled for, I agree, but America needs Michael Moore. 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was incredibly manipulative and grossly biased against the Bush administration, but everything in it was fact. It would have been "nice" for him to have presented some balancing arguments, but that wasn't his intention. Moore's a dissident, and I think America needs high-profile dissidents.

I agree.  I have no problem with him being rabidly anti-Bush.  I am.  Moore has no responsibility to present pro-right-wing points of view.  You can see that on the cable news networks all night long.  Moore does have a responsibility to make his research impeccable, well-founded, and not to personally come off like a slob and a guttermouth.
Moore doesn't have to leave out information and use deceptive editing technique to make the right-wing look like fascist pigs, because they ARE fascist pigs.  He just has to get out of the game of "gotcha" on their turf, and work more from the position of Ralph Nader, Chalmers Johnson, Howard Zinn, and Noam Chomsky.

Here's a bit of criticism of Moore(albeit from some rather partisan, right wing voices):

http://www.conservativebookservice.com/bookpage.asp?prod_cd=c6494
http://www.mooreexposed.com/

His outburst at the Oscars was uncalled for, I agree, but America needs Michael Moore. 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was incredibly manipulative and grossly biased against the Bush administration, but everything in it was fact. It would have been "nice" for him to have presented some balancing arguments, but that wasn't his intention. Moore's a dissident, and I think America needs high-profile dissidents.



I do agree with you. We don't have enough dissidents. Of course in this day and age, many are afraid to speak their minds. "If you speak out against the government, you must hate American and must be a terrorist". That kind of attitude really makes me very mad. It was because of dissidents that gave blacks and women the vote, it gave us 8 hour workdays and overtime, it gave us the end of child labor, and so much more. Of course when people do speak their minds, they are called that "horrible" word-LIBERAL!  Well, I am a LIBERAL and I am d@mn proud of it. I believe in justice and equality FOR ALL, not just for the rich. And if that makes me a terrorist, then so be it. I would rather be that way than a liar like MANY (NOT ALL-so some people here don't think I am calling them liars) right-wing propaganists especially those in the media.




Cat

My thoughts exactly. Up until that speech at the Oscars, I never had a problem with him (I was even planning on seeing Bowling For Columbine...until he opened his mouth :P). Since then though, he's gotten a wee bit out of hand.
I completely love what you said!

His outburst at the Oscars was uncalled for, I agree, but America needs Michael Moore. 'Fahrenheit 9/11' was incredibly manipulative and grossly biased against the Bush administration, but everything in it was fact. It would have been "nice" for him to have presented some balancing arguments, but that wasn't his intention. Moore's a dissident, and I think America needs high-profile dissidents.


I agree. I agree.

http://www.werenotsorry.com/images/PSArt/sorryexcuse.jpg

I agree that Michael Moore inflates the truth sometimes, but he's got alot of passion for what he does and I think the world needs more of that. And when he doesn't stretch the truth, he's absolutely right.

I just wonder how people would feel about him if he looked different???????

btw I agree that one needs to hear dissident voices...ther power of capital is quite overwhelming....

an anecdote:


I atended a meeting in Washington in 1998 of the Instuitute of international Finance( a banking grouip .. big/global).

. it was a criitical time .. the currencies were collapsing like dominos in the far east

the Russian default had just hit the markets....

long Term Capiital Management had just been saved ... everyone was feeling twitchy...

the keynote speaker was Paul Volcker .. decribed as former Chairman Federal Reserve Board ..and current chairman..north American Diviison .......Trilateral Commission....

his message was:

that no matter how bad things got one should never ever  even begin to think of being tempterd to
restrict the free movement of capital.........

so for all you conpiracy theorists out there .. you are right .. The Trilats do tell verybody (ie the world's bankers)) what to do.......



.

I don't give a crap about the phony-@$$ Oscars anyway, they're bull! I don't think his "outburst" was uncalled for and I don't even think it was an "outburst." The man had a message and he used the time he had in the spotlight at the time to get it out there. Good for him! Back then he wasn't exactly the centre of media attention he is nowadays... of course, that was before he started making anti bush films. And I'm tired of this crap. Being a liberal means believing in the liberal idelogy, not having to defend every move a liberal leader makes. I have no beef with Michael Moore, he's just trying his best to get the word out... if I have a problem, it's with the RWPM who tries to villify his every step. If it wasn't Moore, it would be someone else. If you or I tried to spread liberal ideas and got popular enough, we'd be next.

On one hand, I'm glad Michael Moore is out there taking on the Hannitys and Limbaughs and O'Reillys of the world. But instead of countering their propaganda with the TRUTH, he's just fighting their right-wing B.S. with his own B.S. And that makes him no better than they are. There were segments in both Bowling For Columbine and Fahrenheit 9/11 that were so blatantly slanted that I found them to be extremely insulting to my intelligence, and that so upset me that they ruined what would have otherwise been great films. Why does Moore have to distort everything? Leave that to the right-wing nutjobs. Just tell us the frickin' TRUTH already. I don't like being lied to.  >:(