splash in the news, and make more people curious enough to see it.
Unless I'm mistaken, the right has not even tried to refute the movie in a point-by-point manner - instead, they've had to resort to generalized, name-calling attacks on Moore.
I've even heard a few criticize the movie for "telling us things we already know". LOL! As if hearing the truth more than once was a bad thing.
From what I've seen- right is calling for his head- left is pointing out flaws in actual presentation. And then there is Chris Hitchens who is sort of a libertarian calling him the worst things of all.
Check out slate...
Sully
Waiting for DVD- I have kids...
Book: 'Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man'
Thursday, June 24, 2004
A just released book takes on Michael Moore as never before. Its title screams: “Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man.”
And surprisingly, this book has been published by the same publisher who gave us Michael Moore’s own runaway bestseller “Stupid White Men.”
Apparently, more than a few people want to take revenge on Michael Moore and the timing couldn’t be better – with the release this week of his “documentary” attack piece on George Bush - Fahrenheit 9/11.
Moore is so terrified by his detractors he claims that he has already hired a cabal of lawyers. He says he will sue Bush supporters who he thinks may be preparing to slander him.
Moore's hypocrisy is obvious. Slate editor Jack Shafer says “Moore's hysterical, empty threats" to sue critics of his latest schlockumentary shows that he "appears to believe in free speech only for himself."
One possible target for Moore’s lawyers may be the publisher of his own book.
Moore’s one time publisher, ReganBooks, is out with a disturbing yet comical book that dismantles every cog of that propaganda machine marketed as Michael Moore.
David T. Hardy and Jason Clarke's "Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man" begins by unearthing his phony roots and goes right up to his latest "documentary."
Meet the Flint-drone: Everybody knows Moore is a blue-collar guy from Flint, Mich., right? That's how he always sells himself.
In reality, he was born and raised in the wealthy, lily-white town of Davison, Mich, the authors reveal. No wonder the clown prince of self-loathing developed such a complex about hating rich, stupid white males.
In a letter to Roger Ebert of the Chicago Sun-Times last year, Moore still listed his town as Flint. In fact, despite his proclamations that "capitalism is a sin" and "an evil system," he lives in a $1.9 million apartment in Manhattan and enjoys a $1.2 million summer home on Torch Lake in Michigan.
Does not play well with others: Moore can't get along even with his fellow travelers.
Hardy and Clarke disclose how the radical magazine Mother Jones fired the "arbitrary" and "suspicious" Moore; how he started his feud with his replacement, David Talbot, who later founded Salon; how Ralph Nader's organization fired Moore; how he attacked Pauline Kael, Harlan Jacobson and other prominent critics who exposed the deceits of his schlockumentaries; how he lost a lawsuit for betraying fellow lefty activist Larry Stecco in "Roger & Me," etc.
Nor can the elitist Moore tolerate those lowly working classes and students he claims to represent.
"Big Fat Stupid White Man" gives details of how he abused the staff during a speaking engagement at London's Roundhouse Theater; how he castigated a student who dared question his hefty speaking fee; how he attacked a young documentary maker who had the nerve to give him a taste of the "Roger & Me" treatment, and so forth.
And don't forget his amusingly shrill denunciation of those awful blue-collar crewmen who, unlike his fellow multimillionaires in Hollywood’s left, booed him during his tirade at the Oscars.
The book presents one example after another, alternating between frightening and hilarious, to make a brilliant case for Moore having Narcissistic Personality Disorder.
Then there's his feud with his former publisher, HarperCollins subsidiary ReganBooks, which gave us his best seller “Stupid White Men” and now brings us “Michael Moore Is A Big Fat Stupid White Man.”
ReganBooks, he claims, tried "to censor me and the things I wanted to say. They insisted I rewrite up to 50 percent of the book and that I remove sections that they found offensive to our leader, Mr. Bush." The company plotted "to 'pulp' and recycle all 50,000 copies of my book that were gathering dust in a warehouse," he insists.
However, ReganBooks issued a statement contradicting these allegations:
"Originally scheduled for release on September 11, 2001, the book was delayed by mutual agreement between author and publisher after the events of that day. Despite erroneous reports that have appeared in the press, the publisher never attempted to censor the book on partisan grounds, though the publisher and author did discuss replacing the original version of the book with an updated version to address the post-9/11 world. Ultimately, the decision was made to release the book in its original form, and it went on to become a huge success for both the publisher and the author. ReganBooks has since declined to exercise its option to publish another book by Mr. Moore."
I have no issue with ANYONE's criticism of Moore's work, so long as it is THEIR criticism, and not just passing along other people's views who have an agenda. If YOU read the book, or see the film, and form a view about it, then your opinion carries some weight. Otherwise, you are merely the stooge of someone else who wants to control the way you think. Which is exactly what the Bush Administration has been doing with the American people concerning Iraq.
This isn't elementary school and you're not the teacher. Stop appointing yourself opinion monitor! Nobody cares!
That was my point. You relayed false charges and claimed that they were valid charges against Moore's film. (see my post above dealing directly with your two claims). If you had actually SEEN the film, you might well know that the charges you relayed were not what Moore ACTUALLY said. 1st of all, he never said that Bush himself arranged the flight, rather, that the Bush ADMINISTRATION did, after Prince Bandar requested it (Moore's film shows a clip of Bandar acknowledging he made such a request, in response to a Larry King question). Clarke WAS part of the Bush Administration, and he certainly represented the Administration's interests at the time in doing his job. And, BTW, Moore also NEVER said that the Pipeline was the ONLY reason Bush went after Afghanistan first. What he DID say was, that it was necessary to go after Afghanistan in order to be able to then justify Iraq, and, BTW, if we happened to kick out the Taliban and disrupt Al Qaida, that would be another benefit.
But thanks for so clearly making my case for me that these 2nd hand objections are baseless, when being relayed by folks who never actually saw the film, and therefore, are talking out of their asses when making charges about it.
That's a great argument, except Moore wants to charge money to share his ideas. HE IS THE CAPITALIST PIG HE DECRIES ABOUT!!
So what you are saying is we should HAVE TO PAY to express an opinion. I'm also not familiar of all of the works of herr Goebbels either, but based on his track record, I feel confident in forming an opinion on his materials...
How do you even KNOW what's in the movie? For example, the objections that Bribite raised are in fact lies themselves, put out by folks who are afraid of what the film says. How can you know that they are misrepresentations, or that Moore himself has made misrepresentations if you don't see what he ACTUALLY said in the film?
You have every right not to see the film. But you are 100% unqualified to discuss it's contents, because You don't even KNOW what the contents of the film are. And, most of the right-wing critiques of the film that I've seen have made no bones about lying about what the film actually does say. If you choose to accept those lies at face value, you are a dupe. But, as a Bush supporter, you are already be used to accepting lies at face value.
How many times have you posted on this board when someone refers to something to back up their argument that their source is biased or right winged (i.e. Fox News). Basically saying it is not a credible source.
Now basically what you are hearing from most of the people on the right on this board is that Moore is a biased and untrustworthy source. Now suddenly we hear all this "Beethoven" crap and that the source should not matter!!
I guess what you are saying is you will no longer criticize sources on this board because of where they come from, or do you just want to stick with your double standard...
For example, the Fox News review of Fahrenheit 9/11 was startlingly objective. BTW, they raved about the film.
Another example is, I bother to rebut your posts, rather than simply dismissing them due to the source.