Last night, I was evacuated from my apartment by the LAPD. Seems an at large accussed rapist/murderer was staying two doors down. Since I was outdoors last night from about 1:30 A.M. to 4:30, I'm still too sleepy to go into details, but, while telling a friend about it, we got into a discussion of the hilarious scene from "Bowling for Colombine" (which I finally saw just lately and heartily recommend to all of you -- it's gotta be Moore's best work) where Moore, informed that "no one" in Canada locks there doors, precedes to politely intrude on several apparently unconcerned Canadians...
So, a reality check, please, from Blue Chair and any other Canadians -- or any other non-U.S. residents -- do you folks really go to bed at night with unlocked doors?
The thought is pretty much unimaginable to this lifelong U.S. city resident and I'm actually FAR less fearful than most Americans.
My parents would go into panic attacks and scream bloody murder if I left the door open even for 30 seconds while bringing in groceries for fear of Charles Manson, Louis Farakhan and the cast of "New Jack City" staging a coordinated attack on West Los Angeles....
Could Michael Moore Walk Into Blue Chair's House?
Could Michael Moore Walk Into Blue Chair's House?
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
This was something I discussed with many of my fellow Canadians after seeing Bowling For Columbine.
I am one of many homes in my relatively safe suburban neighborhood that not only keeps our doors locked at all times, but also sets a security alarm system overnight. Cases of break-ins are rare in my neighborhood, but I can't imagine leaving my door unlocked in some of the rougher parts of Toronto.
Of course, in small towns no matter what country you live in, you are more likely to adopt a relaxed attitude when it comes to locking your doors.
I am one of many homes in my relatively safe suburban neighborhood that not only keeps our doors locked at all times, but also sets a security alarm system overnight. Cases of break-ins are rare in my neighborhood, but I can't imagine leaving my door unlocked in some of the rougher parts of Toronto.
Of course, in small towns no matter what country you live in, you are more likely to adopt a relaxed attitude when it comes to locking your doors.
This morning you've got time for a hot, home-cooked breakfast! Delicious and piping hot in only 3 microwave minutes.
That was the big part of <i>Bowling for Columbine</i> that bothered me....while I liked the movie overall, this scene seemed to be pretty vague. First of all, he didn't make it clear how many doors he had to knock on to find the two or three that he showed were unlocked. He also didn't make it clear where it was he was walking into people's unlocked homes - he seemed to only mention a few cities - Toronto, Sarnia, and Windsor, so it would be assumed it was one of those three cities. While Toronto is obviously a really big city, the population of Sarnia is less than 100 thousand and Windsor something like 300 thousand.
So I guess my point is - assuming he went door to door only in the smaller cities, how many people lock thier doors in comparably small cities within the US? I am from a small city (something like 250 thousand) and while my immediate family locks their doors, I know my grandmother routinely doesn't...
So I don't think his point was really that valid if he only tested in smaller cities. So as Blue mentioned I think most Canadians do lock their doors, especially if they live in the larger cities.
So I guess my point is - assuming he went door to door only in the smaller cities, how many people lock thier doors in comparably small cities within the US? I am from a small city (something like 250 thousand) and while my immediate family locks their doors, I know my grandmother routinely doesn't...
So I don't think his point was really that valid if he only tested in smaller cities. So as Blue mentioned I think most Canadians do lock their doors, especially if they live in the larger cities.
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
Michael Moore is a filmmaker and entertainer. He never lets the whole truth get in the way of a good story. If you know that going into his movies and books, they're great to watch/read. If you're looking for gospel truth...try Matthew.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
-
double dutchess
- Posts: 146
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 11:01 am
- Location: New York
When I lived with my ex-boyfriend in a small town in rural IL about 2 years ago, I was suprised at his lax attitude about locking the front door. Apparantly, in his hometown, people felt safe enough not to do that. But having grown up in some not so sheltered places, it's always been a habit for me.
I wasn't born the sharpest thorn
-
Misha
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:59 pm
- Location: Northern Cold England, and Los Angeles, CA
Ah, the day has come, I have ended up on the other side of the fence from Noise.....noiseradio wrote:Michael Moore is a filmmaker and entertainer. He never lets the whole truth get in the way of a good story. If you know that going into his movies and books, they're great to watch/read. If you're looking for gospel truth...try Matthew.
I think MM is needed. I think he is the first guy in many, many moons to make people think about what the hell is going on. Sure, he is a filmmaker...I'm with you on that. Entertainer? Nah, I'm off that ship. I'm not "entertained" by what he says, I'm horrified. He tells us more of the truth than we get from most other sources......I agree that I think he could have given us more information about the ratio of unlocked houses in Canada to locked houses....but there is stuff in that movie/his other movie/ his books that people won't find on their news channel. I agree he can be tactless and a social outcast, but I feel it is needed. Desperately needed. It's funny (as in funny-strange) that he was sticking his neck out while the rest of our country was doing a "Bush is our hero, Bush would never lie to us, long live Bush" thing.....and what are we finding out...he was right....what else could he be right about.
I just finished reading Dude, Where's My Country...and yeah, it is very soapboxy.....but true. Not just anecdotal crap....sourced information. He rants about it, but it has a basis in fact. Unlike a lot of stuff spewed about by media/politicians in our country...
I don't expect the "gospel truth" out of anyone in the media....MM included, but when the information he is giving out is sourced....it's a lot easier to listen to.
(See....Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them, Al Franken....again, sourced and it shows the problems our media has with sticking to the truth, and/or giving us the truth).
I wouldn't even suggest that going to the bible would help fill in the truth of Canadians locking or unlocking their doors.
Noise-------
Where are the strong?
Who are the trusted?
Who are the trusted?
Thanks for responding, all.
Ah, another myth shattered. I suspected as much, but you can never be sure. When I was in Montreal, every cab driver bragged to me about how little crime there was. (Which was the opposite of my prior trip, to the slightly similar/related town of New Orleans, where every cab driver warned me about which neighborhoods to avoid/flee at all costs.) Still, I figured it was crime free enough to actually not lock doors.
Re: Moore as Entertainer vs. Moore as Reporter. Well, I think he'd admit he's a lot more of the first than of the second. Whether that justifies manipulating the truth is, I think, a question that gets at the heart of his chosen genre of documentaries. I do find his films very entertaining, though I also admit that I enjoy a good bout of righteous indignation.
Anyone who's made a film knows that, by the editing process, you are inherently selecting things and, even in forms like cinema verite which are supposed to approach the most unvarnished truth possible, a bias will inevitably form based on your selection of which part of the truth to present.
Moore's films, at least, wear there bias on their sleeve. Whether leaving out certain inconvenient (for the purposes of entertainment or making your poing) fact in this format is permissible even given that is a question I'm simply too tired to tackle.
Ah, another myth shattered. I suspected as much, but you can never be sure. When I was in Montreal, every cab driver bragged to me about how little crime there was. (Which was the opposite of my prior trip, to the slightly similar/related town of New Orleans, where every cab driver warned me about which neighborhoods to avoid/flee at all costs.) Still, I figured it was crime free enough to actually not lock doors.
Re: Moore as Entertainer vs. Moore as Reporter. Well, I think he'd admit he's a lot more of the first than of the second. Whether that justifies manipulating the truth is, I think, a question that gets at the heart of his chosen genre of documentaries. I do find his films very entertaining, though I also admit that I enjoy a good bout of righteous indignation.
Anyone who's made a film knows that, by the editing process, you are inherently selecting things and, even in forms like cinema verite which are supposed to approach the most unvarnished truth possible, a bias will inevitably form based on your selection of which part of the truth to present.
Moore's films, at least, wear there bias on their sleeve. Whether leaving out certain inconvenient (for the purposes of entertainment or making your poing) fact in this format is permissible even given that is a question I'm simply too tired to tackle.
http://www.forwardtoyesterday.com -- Where "hopelessly dated" is a compliment!
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
Misha,
You misunderstood me completely. And that's too bad, but not tragic.
I like Michael Moore's work. I think Roger & Me is one of the finest films of the modern era. It paints vividly the rampant corporate greed of GM and other similar companies, for whome the bottom line is more important than the people who help you earn it. It shows, brutally, how GM betrayed the city that gave it its birth. And it is true, in the sense that it acurately portrays the big picture of what happened.
BUT
It's not accurate in the strict documentary sense of the word. He tells things out of chronological order, stages a few scenes, and editd the thing together to get his point across without concern for whether he was being (forgive the reference) fair and balanced. And that's just dandy with me. Because I know what he's doing, and I know how and why he's doing it. He's demonizing the bad guys and hero worshiping the good guys. That the bad guys are characatures of evil by the end is just a testament to Moore's skills as a propagandist. He's GREAT at it.
And you just have to be kidding about the entertainment thing. People would not watch his films if they weren't entertaining. They are laugh-out-loud funny again and again. That doesn't mean they don't underscore a terribly important point. It doesn't mean that they don't do us a great service by presenting the discourse with a side of the argument that is usually completely ignored. But it does mean that you shouldn't quote statistics from his works or assume that his inferences are universally to be accepted. Like the locked door thing--I get the point, but you know, deep in your heart, that Canadians lock their doors. As mentioned above, if he was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you'd have 9 locked doors and on unlocked door. But he won't do that for 2 reasons. 1. It would run counter to the point that he's trying to prove--that Canadians aren't gun-crazy. 2. It wouldn't be entertaining. No one wants to watch Mchael Moore unsuccessfully jiggle doorknobs for 10 minutes until one finally opens. That would be accurate, but deathly dull.
Dude, Where's My Country? Lies and the Lying Liars...? Funny books. And funny books that make some excellent points. There's even a bit of solid research or two in there. But Lies is SATIRE. A lot of times, Franken makes a point with bad research--on purpose. For example, he accuses Ann COulter of lying with footnotes by burying her endnotes at the back of the book so peope won't look them up. On the same page, he makes an erroneous statement about Coulter, and if you look up the endnote (a pain), it corrects the error, adding "See how hard that was to find?" It's funny. But a lot of his statements are inaccurate (on purpose) or hyperbolous for the express purpose of entertaining the audience while challenging them a bit. If I were writing a research paper on any of these topics, I would NEVER use Moore or Franken. Neither of them have the discipline of a historian or even a proper journalist in their citations. That doesn't bother me. I appreciate what they do. But I'm just saying it's a bad idea to assume that these guys presented all their facts straight.
Finally, and most importantly, you misunderstood my gospel of Matthew reference. That there was a joke. A funny. A knee-slapper. It's an old southern expression: "And that's the gospel truth." Moore's films are true, they just ain't entirely true. They're not the "gospel truth." So I typed, "If you want the gospel truth..." and then thought it would be funny to mention a Bible book in there. Just a pun. I wasn't suggesting that you'd find accurate statistics on gun control in the Sermon on the Mount.
You misunderstood me completely. And that's too bad, but not tragic.
I like Michael Moore's work. I think Roger & Me is one of the finest films of the modern era. It paints vividly the rampant corporate greed of GM and other similar companies, for whome the bottom line is more important than the people who help you earn it. It shows, brutally, how GM betrayed the city that gave it its birth. And it is true, in the sense that it acurately portrays the big picture of what happened.
BUT
It's not accurate in the strict documentary sense of the word. He tells things out of chronological order, stages a few scenes, and editd the thing together to get his point across without concern for whether he was being (forgive the reference) fair and balanced. And that's just dandy with me. Because I know what he's doing, and I know how and why he's doing it. He's demonizing the bad guys and hero worshiping the good guys. That the bad guys are characatures of evil by the end is just a testament to Moore's skills as a propagandist. He's GREAT at it.
And you just have to be kidding about the entertainment thing. People would not watch his films if they weren't entertaining. They are laugh-out-loud funny again and again. That doesn't mean they don't underscore a terribly important point. It doesn't mean that they don't do us a great service by presenting the discourse with a side of the argument that is usually completely ignored. But it does mean that you shouldn't quote statistics from his works or assume that his inferences are universally to be accepted. Like the locked door thing--I get the point, but you know, deep in your heart, that Canadians lock their doors. As mentioned above, if he was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you'd have 9 locked doors and on unlocked door. But he won't do that for 2 reasons. 1. It would run counter to the point that he's trying to prove--that Canadians aren't gun-crazy. 2. It wouldn't be entertaining. No one wants to watch Mchael Moore unsuccessfully jiggle doorknobs for 10 minutes until one finally opens. That would be accurate, but deathly dull.
Dude, Where's My Country? Lies and the Lying Liars...? Funny books. And funny books that make some excellent points. There's even a bit of solid research or two in there. But Lies is SATIRE. A lot of times, Franken makes a point with bad research--on purpose. For example, he accuses Ann COulter of lying with footnotes by burying her endnotes at the back of the book so peope won't look them up. On the same page, he makes an erroneous statement about Coulter, and if you look up the endnote (a pain), it corrects the error, adding "See how hard that was to find?" It's funny. But a lot of his statements are inaccurate (on purpose) or hyperbolous for the express purpose of entertaining the audience while challenging them a bit. If I were writing a research paper on any of these topics, I would NEVER use Moore or Franken. Neither of them have the discipline of a historian or even a proper journalist in their citations. That doesn't bother me. I appreciate what they do. But I'm just saying it's a bad idea to assume that these guys presented all their facts straight.
Finally, and most importantly, you misunderstood my gospel of Matthew reference. That there was a joke. A funny. A knee-slapper. It's an old southern expression: "And that's the gospel truth." Moore's films are true, they just ain't entirely true. They're not the "gospel truth." So I typed, "If you want the gospel truth..." and then thought it would be funny to mention a Bible book in there. Just a pun. I wasn't suggesting that you'd find accurate statistics on gun control in the Sermon on the Mount.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
--William Shakespeare
--William Shakespeare
-
laughingcrow
- Posts: 2476
- Joined: Tue Jul 29, 2003 8:35 am
I agree with Noise, Michael Moore is a good filmmaker...but he mixes up fact and fantasy...
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
ww.mooreexposed.com
These sites are the opposite side of the coin to him, and yes they are just websites by joe schmo, but there is some truth in their critque.
http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html
ww.mooreexposed.com
These sites are the opposite side of the coin to him, and yes they are just websites by joe schmo, but there is some truth in their critque.
It would have been easy enough to leave out the part about Canadians not locking their doors, and just focusing on the fact that a lot less Canadians keep loaded guns in their houses than Americans, considering that's what the movie is essentially about.
This morning you've got time for a hot, home-cooked breakfast! Delicious and piping hot in only 3 microwave minutes.
-
mood swung
- Posts: 6908
- Joined: Thu Jun 05, 2003 3:59 pm
- Location: out looking for my tribe
- Contact:
-
Mr. Average
- Posts: 2031
- Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2003 12:22 pm
- Location: Orange County, Californication
-
Misha
- Posts: 733
- Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2003 6:59 pm
- Location: Northern Cold England, and Los Angeles, CA
Noise,
I'm no good at this "quote" thing, so I'm just going to work my voice in with yours....
You misunderstood me completely. And that's too bad, but not tragic.
Well, good to know....I guess? I think, maybe I must have misunderstood you by what you have written below....
I like Michael Moore's work. I think Roger & Me is one of the finest films of the modern era. It paints vividly the rampant corporate greed of GM and other similar companies, for whome the bottom line is more important than the people who help you earn it. It shows, brutally, how GM betrayed the city that gave it its birth. And it is true, in the sense that it acurately portrays the big picture of what happened.
I do think Roger & Me was an astounding film....and disturbing. And I agree with you 100% here, except for it being one of the finest films of the modern era....that's a bit of a stretch for me....
BUT It's not accurate in the strict documentary sense of the word. He tells things out of chronological order, stages a few scenes, and editd the thing together to get his point across without concern for whether he was being (forgive the reference) fair and balanced. And that's just dandy with me. Because I know what he's doing, and I know how and why he's doing it. He's demonizing the bad guys and hero worshiping the good guys. That the bad guys are characatures of evil by the end is just a testament to Moore's skills as a propagandist. He's GREAT at it.
Again, I agree with you. Which is totally screwing with my previous post where I thought I totally disagreed with you.....hormones.....
I know that it is not a true documentary in the sense that National Geographic does a documentary about penguins. I agree he's not concerned with being "fair and balanced"---which is ok for me, as he isn't on the evening news pretending to be. He's a pissed off man. And he shows it. And, I also, sadly, agree that he is a propagandist......(is there anything left for me to fight about with you?---sad, disappointed, petulant emoticon here)(Misha is losing ground rapidly....rethinking drinking hot cocoa before posting late at night)
And you just have to be kidding about the entertainment thing. People would not watch his films if they weren't entertaining. They are laugh-out-loud funny again and again. That doesn't mean they don't underscore a terribly important point. It doesn't mean that they don't do us a great service by presenting the discourse with a side of the argument that is usually completely ignored. But it does mean that you shouldn't quote statistics from his works or assume that his inferences are universally to be accepted. Like the locked door thing--I get the point, but you know, deep in your heart, that Canadians lock their doors. As mentioned above, if he was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you'd have 9 locked doors and on unlocked door. But he won't do that for 2 reasons. 1. It would run counter to the point that he's trying to prove--that Canadians aren't gun-crazy. 2. It wouldn't be entertaining. No one wants to watch Mchael Moore unsuccessfully jiggle doorknobs for 10 minutes until one finally opens. That would be accurate, but deathly dull.
Yaay!!! Something to disagree about. I guess it boils down to my definition of the word "entertainment". I tend to see entertainment as something that I enjoy. Something that I am disturbed by I don't consider Entertainment. Semantics. I do enjoy his flipness, and yes I have laughed aplenty. But calling it entertainment would be wierd for me.
It doesn't mean that they don't do us a great service by presenting the discourse with a side of the argument that is usually completely ignored.
Absolutely.
I wouldn't quote his sources as fact, but I would say that he said them. (Provided I could remember anything other than which condo owner has a roof leak. Which I can't. So, the whole source thing wouldn't work for me.) But, the fact that he does source what he says, would at least lead me to the place he got the information and then I could make up my own mind.....as opposed to general information just being thrown about.....I DO NOT for one moment take what comes out of his mouth as the truth....I take it as stuff that is PROBABLY true, or COULD be true.....and many times it is stuff that I haven't heard one word about on the news.
Agree about the whole Canadian door thing. But, I think the bigger point was.....here is a whole society, who have lots of guns, but don't live on a fear-based system of media and hype....so... they tend to shoot one another less and fear it less.(or something close to that, as I haven't seen it since it came out).
Dude, Where's My Country? Lies and the Lying Liars...? Funny books. And funny books that make some excellent points. There's even a bit of solid research or two in there. But Lies is SATIRE. A lot of times, Franken makes a point with bad research--on purpose. For example, he accuses Ann COulter of lying with footnotes by burying her endnotes at the back of the book so peope won't look them up. On the same page, he makes an erroneous statement about Coulter, and if you look up the endnote (a pain), it corrects the error, adding "See how hard that was to find?" It's funny. But a lot of his statements are inaccurate (on purpose) or hyperbolous for the express purpose of entertaining the audience while challenging them a bit. If I were writing a research paper on any of these topics, I would NEVER use Moore or Franken. Neither of them have the discipline of a historian or even a proper journalist in their citations. That doesn't bother me. I appreciate what they do. But I'm just saying it's a bad idea to assume that these guys presented all their facts straight.
Lies is definetly satire....I didn't miss that...thus the two gay Owens. But, if you read the footnotes....they are real pieces of literature....barring the funny ones. Dates, channels, papers, books, etc. He just makes fun of the handling of them. Again, I don't quote sources, as I barely remember my own name. But, I think he (Franken--and Moore) did do research, and I do think they quote their sources.....now are there more sources that say something different? Sure. I can get you sources that say that we have landed on the moon, I can also get you sources that say we didn't. It is all who is talking that you need to decide for yourself....thus sources. I disagree about Franken not nailing all the facts...I think he did, and then made fun of them. I think I'm more apt to believe someone who doesn't pull any..."I'm neutral and just reporting the news as it happened" crap. They make no bones of their dissatisfaction, and can cite sources of why they are dissatisfied, many of which I agree with. I don't know that Bill O'Nut Job has sound sources, maybe he does, I just can't bear to listen to him for as long as it takes Advil to work. I tend to think they are more accurate than they are inaccurate. That sums it up.
Finally, and most importantly, you misunderstood my gospel of Matthew reference. That there was a joke. A funny. A knee-slapper. It's an old southern expression: "And that's the gospel truth." Moore's films are true, they just ain't entirely true. They're not the "gospel truth." So I typed, "If you want the gospel truth..." and then thought it would be funny to mention a Bible book in there. Just a pun. I wasn't suggesting that you'd find accurate statistics on gun control in the Sermon on the Mount.
I didn't get the joke(chagrined emoticon here). I hadn't heard that expression before.....(just pathetic emoticon here). I thought it was you saying that all answers to everything could be found in _____(book of the bible here).
Misha is going to go hide somewhere....
Now that I have essentially agreed with you on everything, I am vowing to disagree with you completely for the next week. Regardless.
I'm no good at this "quote" thing, so I'm just going to work my voice in with yours....
You misunderstood me completely. And that's too bad, but not tragic.
Well, good to know....I guess? I think, maybe I must have misunderstood you by what you have written below....
I like Michael Moore's work. I think Roger & Me is one of the finest films of the modern era. It paints vividly the rampant corporate greed of GM and other similar companies, for whome the bottom line is more important than the people who help you earn it. It shows, brutally, how GM betrayed the city that gave it its birth. And it is true, in the sense that it acurately portrays the big picture of what happened.
I do think Roger & Me was an astounding film....and disturbing. And I agree with you 100% here, except for it being one of the finest films of the modern era....that's a bit of a stretch for me....
BUT It's not accurate in the strict documentary sense of the word. He tells things out of chronological order, stages a few scenes, and editd the thing together to get his point across without concern for whether he was being (forgive the reference) fair and balanced. And that's just dandy with me. Because I know what he's doing, and I know how and why he's doing it. He's demonizing the bad guys and hero worshiping the good guys. That the bad guys are characatures of evil by the end is just a testament to Moore's skills as a propagandist. He's GREAT at it.
Again, I agree with you. Which is totally screwing with my previous post where I thought I totally disagreed with you.....hormones.....
I know that it is not a true documentary in the sense that National Geographic does a documentary about penguins. I agree he's not concerned with being "fair and balanced"---which is ok for me, as he isn't on the evening news pretending to be. He's a pissed off man. And he shows it. And, I also, sadly, agree that he is a propagandist......(is there anything left for me to fight about with you?---sad, disappointed, petulant emoticon here)(Misha is losing ground rapidly....rethinking drinking hot cocoa before posting late at night)
And you just have to be kidding about the entertainment thing. People would not watch his films if they weren't entertaining. They are laugh-out-loud funny again and again. That doesn't mean they don't underscore a terribly important point. It doesn't mean that they don't do us a great service by presenting the discourse with a side of the argument that is usually completely ignored. But it does mean that you shouldn't quote statistics from his works or assume that his inferences are universally to be accepted. Like the locked door thing--I get the point, but you know, deep in your heart, that Canadians lock their doors. As mentioned above, if he was telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, you'd have 9 locked doors and on unlocked door. But he won't do that for 2 reasons. 1. It would run counter to the point that he's trying to prove--that Canadians aren't gun-crazy. 2. It wouldn't be entertaining. No one wants to watch Mchael Moore unsuccessfully jiggle doorknobs for 10 minutes until one finally opens. That would be accurate, but deathly dull.
Yaay!!! Something to disagree about. I guess it boils down to my definition of the word "entertainment". I tend to see entertainment as something that I enjoy. Something that I am disturbed by I don't consider Entertainment. Semantics. I do enjoy his flipness, and yes I have laughed aplenty. But calling it entertainment would be wierd for me.
It doesn't mean that they don't do us a great service by presenting the discourse with a side of the argument that is usually completely ignored.
Absolutely.
I wouldn't quote his sources as fact, but I would say that he said them. (Provided I could remember anything other than which condo owner has a roof leak. Which I can't. So, the whole source thing wouldn't work for me.) But, the fact that he does source what he says, would at least lead me to the place he got the information and then I could make up my own mind.....as opposed to general information just being thrown about.....I DO NOT for one moment take what comes out of his mouth as the truth....I take it as stuff that is PROBABLY true, or COULD be true.....and many times it is stuff that I haven't heard one word about on the news.
Agree about the whole Canadian door thing. But, I think the bigger point was.....here is a whole society, who have lots of guns, but don't live on a fear-based system of media and hype....so... they tend to shoot one another less and fear it less.(or something close to that, as I haven't seen it since it came out).
Dude, Where's My Country? Lies and the Lying Liars...? Funny books. And funny books that make some excellent points. There's even a bit of solid research or two in there. But Lies is SATIRE. A lot of times, Franken makes a point with bad research--on purpose. For example, he accuses Ann COulter of lying with footnotes by burying her endnotes at the back of the book so peope won't look them up. On the same page, he makes an erroneous statement about Coulter, and if you look up the endnote (a pain), it corrects the error, adding "See how hard that was to find?" It's funny. But a lot of his statements are inaccurate (on purpose) or hyperbolous for the express purpose of entertaining the audience while challenging them a bit. If I were writing a research paper on any of these topics, I would NEVER use Moore or Franken. Neither of them have the discipline of a historian or even a proper journalist in their citations. That doesn't bother me. I appreciate what they do. But I'm just saying it's a bad idea to assume that these guys presented all their facts straight.
Lies is definetly satire....I didn't miss that...thus the two gay Owens. But, if you read the footnotes....they are real pieces of literature....barring the funny ones. Dates, channels, papers, books, etc. He just makes fun of the handling of them. Again, I don't quote sources, as I barely remember my own name. But, I think he (Franken--and Moore) did do research, and I do think they quote their sources.....now are there more sources that say something different? Sure. I can get you sources that say that we have landed on the moon, I can also get you sources that say we didn't. It is all who is talking that you need to decide for yourself....thus sources. I disagree about Franken not nailing all the facts...I think he did, and then made fun of them. I think I'm more apt to believe someone who doesn't pull any..."I'm neutral and just reporting the news as it happened" crap. They make no bones of their dissatisfaction, and can cite sources of why they are dissatisfied, many of which I agree with. I don't know that Bill O'Nut Job has sound sources, maybe he does, I just can't bear to listen to him for as long as it takes Advil to work. I tend to think they are more accurate than they are inaccurate. That sums it up.
Finally, and most importantly, you misunderstood my gospel of Matthew reference. That there was a joke. A funny. A knee-slapper. It's an old southern expression: "And that's the gospel truth." Moore's films are true, they just ain't entirely true. They're not the "gospel truth." So I typed, "If you want the gospel truth..." and then thought it would be funny to mention a Bible book in there. Just a pun. I wasn't suggesting that you'd find accurate statistics on gun control in the Sermon on the Mount.
I didn't get the joke(chagrined emoticon here). I hadn't heard that expression before.....(just pathetic emoticon here). I thought it was you saying that all answers to everything could be found in _____(book of the bible here).
Misha is going to go hide somewhere....
Now that I have essentially agreed with you on everything, I am vowing to disagree with you completely for the next week. Regardless.
Where are the strong?
Who are the trusted?
Who are the trusted?
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
I think Michael Moore's goal can be summed up as the following:
By making you see what is going on as ridiculous, he hopes you will care more about changing the world.
Of course, part of making things seem ridiculous is by making them funny.
Like many good films, fiction or non-fiction, Bowling For Columbine made me laugh, tear-up, and in the end wonder "why are people buying all these lies out there?"
By making you see what is going on as ridiculous, he hopes you will care more about changing the world.
Of course, part of making things seem ridiculous is by making them funny.
Like many good films, fiction or non-fiction, Bowling For Columbine made me laugh, tear-up, and in the end wonder "why are people buying all these lies out there?"
This morning you've got time for a hot, home-cooked breakfast! Delicious and piping hot in only 3 microwave minutes.
-
A rope leash
- Posts: 1835
- Joined: Fri Jun 13, 2003 6:47 pm
- Location: southern misery, USA
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact:
-
noiseradio
- Posts: 2295
- Joined: Tue Jun 03, 2003 12:04 pm
- Location: Dallas, TX
- Contact: