or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men"
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men" - Page 2

post #41 of 87
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by solo:
<strong>

What is going on here is reality you crack head. Fallwell blamed innocent people (gays and minorities) for peoples deaths. Moore on the other hand was just pointing out that the policies that most muslims so staunchly disagree with such as complete and unequivocal support for Israel are more conservative ideas while the people who died on september 11 happened to be more liberal. He is in no way saying that anyone deserved to die that day nor that he wished more republicans would have died, he is simply saying that the message Osoma was sending was directed towards the wrong group. It's like if you were mad at the post office so you ended up throwing a brick threw the window of your local UPS station. The Blue Meanie is right when he says that you are simply twisting his words to fit your agenda. typical conservative BS</strong><hr></blockquote>

Exactly. The Blue Meanie couldn't have put it better himself
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
post #42 of 87
Thread Starter 
[quote] Leftist, yes. Democrat, no.
What he has turned himself into is a Democrat-in-disguise, pulling for the jack-ass party and thereby sacrificing all claims to being a real liberal.

The "left" in America isn't "left" at all, it's just a tiny bit scooted over from the American "right". They're essentially the same but they have different platitudes. Moore has decided to make himself Rush Limbaugh's counterpart so the things he says now in attempts to be "independent" are hollow and without weight. <hr></blockquote>

Groverat - I agree that there doesn't appear to be great deal of difference of between the Democrat and Republican parties. The same thing has happened in UK politics, albeit much more recently, with both the Conservatives and Labour wrestling for the centre ground and trying to be as much like each other as possible.
But returning to our baseball-capped subject, is Moore's book really so so slavishly pro-Clintonian and party political? What about the bit where he says: "...the Republicans tell you they're going to screw you; the Democrats don't, but then do it anyway"? He says Clinton was "one of the best Republican presidents we ever had", and Bush only "an uglier and somewhat meaner version of him". He also offers to pay the legal fees for a merger of the two parties.
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
post #43 of 87
So basically he's saying Republicans are evil but honest, and Democrats are evil but don't admit it? I can buy into that.
post #44 of 87
[quote]Originally posted by solo:
<strong>
What is going on here is reality you crack head...</strong><hr></blockquote>

A point of view and reality arent necessarily the same thing.

[quote]<strong>... Fallwell blamed innocent people (gays and minorities) for peoples deaths... </strong><hr></blockquote>

No he didn't. But I'm not going to go into it because his comments were wrong even though you obviously don't have a clue as to what it was he really did say.

[quote]<strong>... Moore on the other hand was just pointing out that the policies that most muslims so staunchly disagree with such as complete and unequivocal support for Israel are more conservative ideas while the people who died on september 11 happened to be more liberal. He is in no way saying that anyone deserved to die that day nor that he wished more republicans would have died, he is simply saying that the message Osoma was sending was directed towards the wrong group. It's like if you were mad at the post office so you ended up throwing a brick threw the window of your local UPS station.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Huh? So if his aim had been better and his brick had gone through the post offices window, who would have died instead? Would it still have been those who didnt vote for Bush? (Remember, Moore was the one who thought this was relevant, not me.) And you didnt bother to answer my question. If Moore wasnt implying that the way to get at Bush was to kill those who did vote for him instead of those who didnt, then why even talk about who the 9/11 victims voted for in the first place? What other reason would he have had for bringing the subject up?

[ 04-08-2002: Message edited by: roger_ramjet ]</p>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #45 of 87
No kidding, Outsider, I'm wondering why all these quotes are no more than one-liner wisecracks...or strings of such. Could it be that he's just writing entertainment and not being very insightful at all? Hmm?

"...the Republicans tell you they're going to screw you; the Democrats don't, but then do it anyway"?

*rimshot*

He says Clinton was "one of the best Republican presidents we ever had", and Bush only "an uglier and somewhat meaner version of him".

badump bump ching

He also offers to pay the legal fees for a merger of the two parties.

Ooh, is he lying here?
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #46 of 87
I posted earlier: [quote]However, Rush is/has been the darling of the U.S. media, with syndicated network radio and TV shows here there and everywhere. In contrast, Moore's TV show "The Awful Truth" managed a limited run on a late night slot on "Bravo" (whazzat??), and now he cannot even get an interview with the supposedly "liberal" National Public Radio (definitely showing their true colors there).<hr></blockquote>

Today I could barely believe my own eyes: Michael Moore actually made an appearance on CNN this morning, (April 8) where he was interviewed on "Talkback Live".

His book has been #1 in the bestsellers lists for over a month now, and this is the first appearance on a nationally syndicated TV show (that I am aware of) since the release. It's hard to imagine any other author of that current popularity being so effectively locked out and snubbed. Network and media corporate executives, (who are final arbiters of content) refuse to give the country's currently most popular author airtime and exposure, because his philosophical/political and ideological orientations are 180ยบ removed from theirs. I have been reading his weekly newsletter and his booksigning tour has been sabotaged by all branches of the media, local police forces, and even his publisher! This is America, 21st century.

Don't we have such an open, liberal media?????

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" />
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #47 of 87
I'll be here till Friday! Thank you Thank you!
post #48 of 87
friday?

good, then you'll have time to finish Mencken's second chrestomathy...

you need it,

cuss
post #49 of 87
Roger Ramjet said:

[quote]No he didn't. But I'm not going to go into it because his comments were wrong even though you obviously don't have a clue as to what it was he really did say.<hr></blockquote>

This is Falwell's original comment (verbatim), supported by Pat Robertson:

"I really believe that the pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way -- all of them who have tried to secularize America -- I point the finger in their
face and say, 'You helped this happen.'"


So now, pointing the finger isn't blaming someone?? What? He is not just blaming gays and lesbians; (although from his track record he openly hates gay people); he is blaming anyone who has a viewpoint that is different to his own blinkered and self-righteous bigotry. He even got a chewing from the White House (wow!) for those comments. That, is quite an achievement for someone who is so in lockstep with the Bush administation's stated (and unstated) mission.

Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson are amongst the most influential "Christians" in America, not to forget of course the godfearing Billy Graham together with his anti-Semitic commentary of course. Falwell and Robertson have turned "Christianity" on it's head; I see not a solitary iota of common ground between Jesus' teachings and these mens' bilious rhetoric. As a guess, I would imagine that these two, together with Atty General Ashcroft, had they been Afghanistani, would have become high-ranking Taliban. Kinda suits their authoritarian character and theocratic aims.

It was amazing that Michael Moore wasn't singled out in his targeted list!
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #50 of 87
Michael Moore is a hypocrite. For example, when he was signing his book in San Diego, he refused to stop at 11PM even though his permit ran out at 11 and the janitors couldn't go home until they had cleaned up after the events.

Even fans of MM are critical of his actions <a href="http://www.kynn.com/politics/moore/" target="_blank">link</a>.
post #51 of 87
[quote]So now, pointing the finger isn't blaming someone?? What? He is not just blaming ... <hr></blockquote>

And Michael Moore's lame verbal attacks against specific groups and people are any better?

It's not who he's attacking that disturbs me. It's why, how and the fact that he will turn a blind eye when its convenient for him. I can't believe the amazing support and interest he garners for it. It turns my stomach into knots as much as any other perversion I see...like Israeli tanks purposely steering into the paths of parked cars or Arabs showing sympathy for suicide-bombers.

[ 04-09-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #52 of 87
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>


So now, pointing the finger isn't blaming someone?? What? He is not just blaming gays and lesbians; (although from his track record he openly hates gay people); he is blaming anyone who has a viewpoint that is different to his own blinkered and self-righteous bigotry. He even got a chewing from the White House (wow!) for those comments. That, is quite an achievement for someone who is so in lockstep with the Bush administation's stated (and unstated) mission.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I've already said more than once now that Falwell was wrong. Solo said that Falwell blamed gays and minorities. His comments were bad enough without claiming that he blamed minorities too. He simply didn't do that.

Now if somebody would bother to answer my question. (I won't be holding my breath waiting for an answer.)
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #53 of 87
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
Don't we have such an open, liberal media?????

<img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <img src="graemlins/oyvey.gif" border="0" alt="[No]" /> <hr></blockquote>


Samantha, welcome! (I have yet to see you post, and you seem to be right on.) THANK GOD we have someone who with some sense and perspicacity around here.

[rant]

The issue of content controllers is one that is often overlooked, due to the fact that those who control the media do not particularly like attention being drawn to the fact that they actually exercise control. The case of Moore's book is a very good one, as you stated earlier. The media is not a left-wing bastion which continually sabotages our current [cough] president, nor is it a right-wing conspiracy nagging Hillary (though what has been shown lately in that respect does get rather frightening).

The media, at the very least, is a capitalist tool. And capitalists have certain things that are in their interest: e.g. lobbying, profit, pushing the opiates of the masses on the masses so that the ride does not get bumpy, and they can still summer on the Vineyard. If there was the rumblings of a new student movement, or civil rights movement, one gets the sense that Carson Daily would be in the thick of it, thus altering its purpose, celebritizing it, and inevitably pacifying it.

How can this country, for example, the most wealthy in the world, have such pathetic public education, a birth-mortality rate that ranks us near the middle of third world countries, a deepening racial divide, women still paid 30% less then men for equal work, homophobia as accepted discourse, gun violence rate that is off the map, a slow-motion environmental apocalypse happening in front of us, AND DO NOTHING????

The answer for all these questions is complicated, but right in the middle of things is the fact that the media, which governs our understanding of things, is controlled, for instance,by huge corporations (e.g. by GE (a polluter) and Disney (an Entertainer)).

Facts are not facts without knowledge and examination of the lens with which one examines them.

[/rant]

Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
Hope Springs Eternal,
Mandricard
AppleOutsider
Reply
post #54 of 87
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>If Moore wasnt implying that the way to get at Bush was to kill those who did vote for him instead of those who didnt, then why even talk about who the 9/11 victims voted for in the first place? What other reason would he have had for bringing the subject up?</strong><hr></blockquote>I've heard conservatives say several times that Moore said something like: "I wish more Republicans had been killed." Now that I've seen his actual comments in this thread, his comments were dumb, but not what they've been characterized.

To answer your question, the reason he brought up who they voted for was that he was thinking terrorists somehow hate Republicans but not Democrats. Now THAT'S dumb. But he wasn't saying he thought it was good to kill Republicans. He was saying the terrorists probably thought that way.
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>It's not who he's attacking that disturbs me. It's why, how and the fact that he will turn a blind eye when its convenient for him. I can't believe the amazing support and interest he garners for it. It turns my stomach into knots as much as any other perversion I see...like Israeli tanks purposely steering into the paths of parked cars or Arabs showing sympathy for suicide-bombers.</strong><hr></blockquote>
:confused:
Wow - I don't get you. Moore is a political entertainer. How in the world are satirical political books and movies comparable to tanks and suicide bombers? Maybe the difference is that although he's spouting off, he's stopping just a little short of killing people? Maybe political speech is part of a healthy system, unlike tanks and suicide bombers?
post #55 of 87
BRussell, is he not still inciting clashes between people...for the benefit of his own amusement and piggy bank?

And I don't think his entertainment is as casual as what you might see on SNL's Weekend Update or something like that.

Blind support is what I'm talking about. I don't condone blind support of Israeli troop movement, Palestinian terrorism, Falwell's Christian fundamentalism or Moore's one-way political attacks.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #56 of 87
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>BRussell, is he not still inciting clashes between people...for the benefit of his own amusement and piggy bank?</strong><hr></blockquote>Yes, but those clashes are political in nature. Political clashes are a good thing, IMO.

Maybe this gets into this whole issue of whether partisanship is a good thing or bad. I think it's good - it clarifies positions, makes you think, stays away from that mushy moderation that some people prefer for some reason.

[quote]And I don't think his entertainment is as casual as what you might see on SNL's Weekend Update or something like that.<hr></blockquote>No. I haven't seen his book, but I wouldn't be surprised if it gets nasty. I don't have any problem with someone not liking him (do you think I like Limbaugh?). I was just surprised that you seemed to say that his type of humor/commentary was inappropriate or illegitimate.
post #57 of 87
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

Blind support is what I'm talking about. I don't condone blind support of Israeli troop movement, Palestinian terrorism, Falwell's Christian fundamentalism or Moore's one-way political attacks.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I guess I agree with you on all the points except the blind support of Moore's one-way political attacks. What exactly do you mean by one way? Do you want him to argue both sides? He is simply an entertainer with a view of how the world should be and maybe he has said some dumb things, but not one thing you have mentioned makes me think that he has crossed any line
post #58 of 87
[quote]Originally posted by BRussell:
<strong>No. I haven't seen his book, but I wouldn't be surprised if it gets nasty. I don't have any problem with someone not liking him (do you think I like Limbaugh?). I was just surprised that you seemed to say that his type of humor/commentary was inappropriate or illegitimate.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's because it looks like he believes most of what he says...unlike other satirical comedians you might see on a public stage.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #59 of 87
Moderation is a bad thing? So I should be on one extreem or the other? That's why we have that whole mess in the middle East.
post #60 of 87
In honor of CosmoNut, I am officially changing my signature back...anyone with a lick of business sense knows what an assinine theory "OSX on x86" is anyway.

BTW, I was going to buy the book having read a synopsis on the NYT booklist. Good thing I didn't; sounds like partisan drivel at its finest.
Aldo is watching....
Reply
Aldo is watching....
Reply
post #61 of 87
[quote]BTW, I was going to buy the book having read a synopsis on the NYT booklist. Good thing I didn't; sounds like partisan drivel at its finest.<hr></blockquote>

It's definitely not traditionally partisan in the 'party political fashion'..although he is a 'liberal' he is no more a 'democrat' than he is a 'republican'. He emphasises that there is precious little difference between the two, although it doesn't exactly take the proverbial rocket scientist to fathom that one out. Yes of course he takes a shy at the Bush etc...but some of his harshest words are reserved for Clinton/Gore.
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
Why of course the people don't want war ... But after all it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy, and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a...
Reply
post #62 of 87
[quote]Originally posted by Samantha Joanne Ollendale:
<strong>

...but some of his harshest words are reserved for Clinton/Gore.</strong><hr></blockquote>

I would love to see an example of this...I understand harshest is in the eye of the beholder, but I just don't see it. I may just read the book to tally all the jabs he makes...political, personal, religious, racial, whatever.
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #63 of 87
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>I do not find Moore's commentary intelligent or witty. He wants attention and that's basically all. That's probably the core motivation for most public figures like him...and Falwell.

It is quite clear Moore bends over backwards to find dirt where his bias leads him.

Elaborate on his ideas and I will tell you why they won't work. His ideas seem more like wisecracks designed to sell books and tapes to me.</strong><hr></blockquote>

A deeply unfair comment if you haven't read the book, surely, Eugene?
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
post #64 of 87
[quote]Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<strong>
A deeply unfair comment if you haven't read the book, surely, Eugene?</strong><hr></blockquote>

You accuse me of twisting Moore's words and then you complain about Eugene being unfair? Make up your mind. You can worry about being fair or you can be Moore's obedient little sycophant. You can't be both.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #65 of 87
[quote]Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<strong>

A deeply unfair comment if you haven't read the book, surely, Eugene?</strong><hr></blockquote>

How is this unfair? Moore's commentary extends past Stupid White Men. Moore has appeared on television (he had his own show,) written numerous articles, written *gasp* other books, made plenty of public speeches, etc. Or are you just being stupid?



The offer still stands. Elaborate on his ideas you find most intellectual and I will respond with logic.

[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</p>
I can change my sig again!
Reply
I can change my sig again!
Reply
post #66 of 87
[quote]He says Clinton was "one of the best Republican presidents we ever had", and Bush only "an uglier and somewhat meaner version of him".<hr></blockquote>

This is exactly my friggin' point, Moore thinks the Democrats are right because of his intellectual dishonesty.

He thinks that anything bad is Republican and refuses to view Clinton as a Democrat. He's a hypocrite, spouting "non-partisan and progressive" philosophy while being just as partisan as Rush Limbaugh.

You proved my point for me.

[edit]

[quote]he is no more a 'democrat' than he is a 'republican'<hr></blockquote>

This is pure, unmitigated bullshit. He KNOWS he shouldn't be but he can't help it because he has turned into a goddam idiot like most American liberals do, hating someone else more than they love what they believe.

[ 04-13-2002: Message edited by: groverat ]</p>
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #67 of 87
Do we need any more proof that partisan politics suck?
post #68 of 87
Woohoo!
Hes going to be in vancouvber this coming tuesday (1 week) touring his book and putting on a free show. I am SO There.

This guy rocks, ya hes leftist, thus, even though he doest like either side, he will favor a "more leftist" government over a blatently right wing government.
Also there is a hell of a lot to complain about in the government right now, and thus hes ranting more about government and less about everything else.
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
Those who dance the dance must look very foolish to those who can't hear the music
Reply
post #69 of 87
What about Noam Chomsky?


TONY JONES: Noam Chomsky, President Bush's position on the Middle East crisis is evolving fast now, but until recently there have been confusing and contradictory signals coming from his administration. What do you think has been happening?

PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY, AUTHOR: The confusion inside the Administration I think, is a confusion about goals.

I mean, the right wing, the hardline right wing, is in favour of escalating violence against the Palestinians until they're crushed. Others are concerned with the impact in the Arab world, which is complicated and within that framework, they're trying to find a policy.

The whole thing is so badly skewed it's hard to even discuss it. There's no symmetry in this situation. There's plenty of violence and terror on both sides, which is awful, and no way to justify it. But the fact is the Palestinians have been under military occupation for 35 years. It has been harsh and brutal and violent throughout - racist, humiliating, destructive. It has been backed entirely by the United States unilaterally. It includes expansion of settlement into the occupied territories. It was actually Barak in his last year, broke all records since Oslo, always supported by the United States. There's just no symmetry.

In the diplomatic scene, there is plenty of criticism you can make about the Arab states. In fact, it's hard to think of anything nice to say about them. But the fact of the matter is that what has been blocking what is now the Saudi Arabian plan, is unilateral US-Israeli opposition.


TONY JONES: Given what you're saying about the brutality of the occupation, do you think the Palestinian suicide bombers are freedom fighters or terrorists?

PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: Terrorists - they're both, actually. They're trying to fight for freedom, but doing it in a totally unacceptable immoral way.

Of course they're terrorists and there's been Palestinian terrorism all the way through. I have always opposed it. I oppose it now. But it's very small as compared with the US-backed Israeli terrorism.

Quite typically, violence reflects the means of violence. It's not unusual. State terror is almost always much more extreme than retail terror and this is no exception.


TONY JONES: If you accept that the bombers are not justified, the argument then shifts to whether or not the victims of those terrorist bombings have the right to take whatever action they deem necessary to put an end to this, which has been Ariel Sharon's justification of his assault from the beginning.

PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: They are certainly justified in defending themselves, but they are not justified in occupying another people in gross violation of international law with brutality and terror of their own. That's not justified and that's been going on for 35 years.

So if a political settlement, if there are moves towards a real political settlement, if the US and Israel will accept that, then they will be entirely justified in defending themselves. But you can't call it self-defense when you're carrying out a military occupation. That doesn't justify the terrorist acts but the concept of self-defense doesn't arise.


TONY JONES: Is there any comparison between the suicide bombers and the September 11 suicide bombers?

PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: None whatsoever. Al Qaeda was not under US military occupation. They claim they were, like their justification is that the US was occupying Saudi Arabia. You can argue about their claim. It certainly doesn't justify their act.

What the right response was to the terrorist bombings on September 11 is another question. If we want to talk about that, we should be willing to establish some principles. So for example, one elementary principle is that if something is right for us, then it's right for others. If it's wrong for others, it's wrong for us. If we can't accept that principle, we can't even talk about right and wrong.

So if those who believe that the right way to respond to September 11 was by bombing Afghans, should also believe that the right way to respond to US terror is by bombing Washington. I don't know anybody who believes that. I certainly don't.

So therefore, almost the entire discussion of this topic that has taken place since September 11 can simply be excluded on the grounds that it does not even rise to the minimal moral level.

That does leave open the question of what the right response was to Al Qaeda terrorism, and I believe that there was a right response, not the one that was taken, but that has nothing to do with what's going on in Israel and Palestine.


TONY JONES: Israel's case is that precisely there are comparisons to be made and that therefore they're justified in applying the US remedies to terrorism, up to and including regime change?

PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: The parallel is ridiculous. Israel has been carrying out, has carried out a 35-year occupation which has been brutal, violent, harsh, destructive from the start. There is just no comparison. It does not justify Palestinian terrorist acts or the more extreme Israeli terrorist acts which continue, but there's just no way to make, to compare it in any sensible fashion.


TONY JONES: Can we shift now to a broader focus and President Bush's plans to attack Iraq, which are critically affected obviously by what's happening in the Middle East? Now would the credible threat of a terrorist attack using weapons of mass destruction justify a pre-emptive strike against Iraq?

PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: Pre-emptive strikes need extremely strong evidence and there's a heavy burden of justification. There's nothing remotely like that.

It's extremely hard to take Bush and his advisers seriously when they talk about their reasons for wanting to depose Saddam Hussein. Saddam Hussein is a monster, there's no doubt about that. Getting rid of him would be a boon to the people of Iraq and the world. But Bush's advisers are not opposed to him because of his crimes or because of his efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction and we all know that.

When he committed his worst crimes, that was with the support of this President's father. The support continued, Britain as well, well after the worst crimes were committed. He was a loyal friend and ally.

Furthermore, both Britain and the United States continued to provide him with the means to develop weapons of mass destruction. He was much more dangerous then than he is now.

Furthermore, if you're looking at the people the United States is trying to gather to replace him, like the general who can't come to the meeting because he's under investigation in Denmark for participation in a massacre - does that indicate any effort to bring some decent outcome for the Iraqi people?

The question of what should be done about Saddam Hussein is a very serious question, but you cannot take these people seriously.


TONY JONES: What sort of proofs though would they have to supply, because those proofs appear to be beyond the scope of international agencies to provide? In the end won't they end up relying on their own intelligence agencies?


PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: It's not trusting its own intelligence. It's trusting its own intentions, which is something quite different.

We do not have any reason to believe any state, certainly not one with the record of the United States, should be given any authorisation to act independently, violently, on the basis of its own leadership groups. That's ridiculous. We don't allow it to anyone else, why to the United States?


TONY JONES: What about a pre-emptive strike, that was suggested recently by a former CIA director, specifically aimed at facilities that create chemical, nuclear or biological weapons?

PROFESSOR NOAM CHOMSKY: First of all, they certainly have made available no evidence about such facilities or any indication that they pose a threat or even that they're aware of attacking them.

That's not what they're aiming at.

What they're aiming at, as we all know, let's not be innocent, Iraq has the second largest oil reserves in the world. One way or another, the US is going to attempt to regain control of them and deny them to its adversaries who have an inside track, primarily France and Russia, and they may think this is a good pretext for it.

Saddam Hussein remains the same monster he was when the US and Britain actively and happily supported him right through his worst crimes, right through the period when he was dangerous and developing weapons of mass destruction. That remains true. But let's not delude ourselves about the reasons that might be used as a pretext, the actual reasons for what will be described under other pretexts.


TONY JONES: But there is a growing momentum in statements by American political leaders and in the press and in statements leaked by intelligence agencies, to provide proofs to at least convince the US public that an attack on Iraq is necessary?

NOAM CHOMSKY: There's no doubt that, I would drop the word proofs, but there's no doubt that serious efforts are being made to construct pretexts which will justify an attack against Iraq in an effort to regain control over the world's second largest oil reserves.

An attack I mean, to get rid of Saddam Hussein, that would be a boon, as I said, but that's not the goal.

The goal, as was described pretty accurately - remember that right after the Gulf War, when the US had total control over the region, there was an uprising in the south, a Shi'ite uprising, which might very well have toppled Saddam Hussein except that George Bush effectively authorised Saddam Hussein to crush it by using military helicopters and other means. That was explained publicly.

Thomas Friedman, who was then the diplomatic correspondent of the 'New York Times', wrote that this was necessary because as he put it, the best of all worlds for the United States would be an iron-fisted military junta which would rule Iraq the same way Saddam Hussein did, much to the pleasure of US allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia and of course, though he didn't mention it, the boss in Washington.

That was the attitude then when Bush permitted Saddam Hussein to crush a Shi'ite rebellion. There's been no change. If the US does do something to try to regain control of Iraq by force, it has to maintain that condition.

It cannot allow a democratic regime to emerge, even limited democracy, because the majority of the population is Shi'ite and if there is any democratic participation, chances are quite strong that it will move towards an alliance with Iran or at least towards connections with Iran, which the US will certainly block, which is exactly why the US is now trying to organise Iraqi generals who were involved in some of the worst atrocities, to be the iron-fisted military junta, which will be a Sunni military junta, to rule Iraq the way Saddam Hussein did, just as Thomas Friedman described and indeed advocated.


TONY JONES: We'll have to leave it there, Noam Chomsky. Thanks for taking the time to join us tonight.

NOAM CHOMSKY: OK. Glad to be with you.

[ 04-17-2002: Message edited by: Mac Freak ]</p>
post #70 of 87
Having not read the book I find the title slightly disturbing. What exactly does the phrase "stupid white men" refer too?

Will there be a sequel about "stupid white Jews" or "stupid black women?"
20" iMac G5, 2 GB Ram, OS X 10.4.11, .Mac
Reply
20" iMac G5, 2 GB Ram, OS X 10.4.11, .Mac
Reply
post #71 of 87
No, you racist. It is only right to make fun of ethnicity if you are a white man. Duh.
post #72 of 87
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

You accuse me of twisting Moore's words and then you complain about Eugene being unfair? Make up your mind. You can worry about being fair or you can be Moore's obedient little sycophant. You can't be both.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Due to various technical glitches, I've only just come back to this post. But sorry rog, I've no idea what you mean. Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Moore's comment is automatically being unfair??
I think not...
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
post #73 of 87
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by Eugene:
<strong>

How is this unfair? Moore's commentary extends past Stupid White Men. Moore has appeared on television (he had his own show,) written numerous articles, written *gasp* other books, made plenty of public speeches, etc. Or are you just being stupid?



The offer still stands. Elaborate on his ideas you find most intellectual and I will respond with logic.

[ 04-12-2002: Message edited by: Eugene ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Okay Eugene, it's a fair cop. Point taken

[ 04-22-2002: Message edited by: The Blue Meanie ]</p>
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
post #74 of 87
[quote]Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<strong>
Due to various technical glitches, I've only just come back to this post. But sorry rog, I've no idea what you mean. Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Moore's comment is automatically being unfair??
I think not...</strong><hr></blockquote>

What crap. You didn't just disagree with me. You said I was twisting his words. I don't know if you are deliberately being this dense or not. At this point I don't really care. Some people I make a point of reading and some I don't. Maybe you belong in the latter group.
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #75 of 87
This article was originally on Salon.com.

<a href="http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_04_07_archive.html#75241524" target="_blank">Moore problems</a> (4/10)

A San Francisco activist claims she's the originator of Michael Moore's unsourced list of dubious Bush achievements in his bestselling "Stupid White Men"

By Ben Fritz

[quote][First published on Salon.com (Salon Premium subscription required)]

A list of 48 dubious achievements of President Bush appears in Michael Moore's bestselling "Stupid White Men," without footnotes or citations of any kind. A reader might assume that they are accumulated nuggets from Moore's own research.

But a San Francisco activist says she came up with the list, and she's not too happy about the way Moore is using it.

Kirsten Selberg contacted Spinsanity following a piece detailing the numerous errors and factual distortions in "Stupid White Men" to say she compiled that list for a wall that was displayed at the "Voters March West" that took place nearly a year ago in San Francisco, on May 19.

Still posted on the Voters March Web site, Selberg's list contains 47 of the 48 facts about Bush mentioned in Moore's book -- in the exactly the same order and with very similar wording. The only difference is that, unlike Moore, Selberg provides sources for almost all of her facts.

Representatives for Moore did not respond to requests for comment...<hr></blockquote>
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #76 of 87
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>This article was originally on Salon.com.

<a href="http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_04_07_archive.html#75241524" target="_blank">Moore problems</a> (4/10)

A San Francisco activist claims she's the originator of Michael Moore's unsourced list of dubious Bush achievements in his bestselling "Stupid White Men"

By Ben Fritz

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Uh oh! He's in trouble now <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
post #77 of 87
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by roger_ramjet:
<strong>

What crap. You didn't just disagree with me. You said I was twisting his words. I don't know if you are deliberately being this dense or not. At this point I don't really care. Some people I make a point of reading and some I don't. Maybe you belong in the latter group.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well, what did you mean then?
I stand by my earlier claim I still think you were twisting that particular comment by the big-boned, baseball cap-wearing, Bush-baiter but there's no need to take it so personally. How many tantrums can you throw in one thread? Take a chill pill, Rog!
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
post #78 of 87
[quote]Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<strong>
Uh oh! He's in trouble now <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> </strong><hr></blockquote>

A journalist who winks at possible plagiarism... huh...
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #79 of 87
[quote]Originally posted by The Blue Meanie:
<strong>
Well, what did you mean then?</strong><hr></blockquote>

I wrote:

[quote]You accuse me of twisting Moore's words and then you complain about Eugene being unfair? Make up your mind. You can worry about being fair or you can be Moore's obedient little sycophant. You can't be both.<hr></blockquote>

You wrote:

[quote]... Anyone who disagrees with your interpretation of Moore's comment is automatically being unfair??
I think not...<hr></blockquote>

I wrote:

[quote]You didn't just disagree with me. You said I was twisting his words.<hr></blockquote>

What dont you understand?

[quote]... How many tantrums can you throw in one thread? Take a chill pill, Rog!<hr></blockquote>

Anyone who disagrees with you is just throwing a tantrum?
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
shooby doo, shooby doo
Reply
post #80 of 87
Thread Starter 
[quote]Originally posted by spaceman_spiff:
<strong>

A journalist who winks at possible plagiarism... huh...</strong><hr></blockquote>

Spaceman Spiff?? Ah, Calvin & Hobbes...[gets dewy-eyed] But what happened to Roger Ramjet?
Anyway, I thought that particular <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" /> smiley was supposed to suggest surprise or confusion, not a wink like the smiley. Correct me if I'm wrong....
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
--
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All wor k and no play makes Jack a dull boyy
Alll work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
All work and no play makes Jack a dull boy
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Michael Moore's "Stupid White Men"