March 25, 2003

POLITICS & THE OSCARS

The only thing new about a politically-oriented speech being given on the Oscars is the degree of hostility with which such endeavors are met in this country.

One would think that spirited discussion of the current state of affairs would be greeted with an air of appreciation that we live in a country where such things are not only accepted, but encouraged and protected by our Founding Fathers. But no. Opposition instead is drawn in the most stark and distorted of terms: If you're opposed to Bush's actions, you're in favor of dictators. If you're opposed to the war, you're against the soldiers risking their lives. And heaven help anyone in the entertainment industry who speaks out: They're risking watching their livelihood spiral down the drain.

What a shame we don't live in a country where criticism of the government carries stiff penalties. Where the citizens know better than to speak out. Where the residents fall into line...or else. A country like...I dunno...Iraq.

PAD

Posted by Peter David at March 25, 2003 10:04 AM | TrackBack | Other blogs commenting
Comments
Posted by: Luke at March 25, 2003 10:17 AM

Hollywood like Michael Moore in theory not in reality. Or they might have been sticking up for Heston after the poor fool was picked on.

Posted by: Frank Baker at March 25, 2003 10:26 AM

PAD,

Just because someone has the ability to do something, does not mean that they should do it.

Just because it's legal or allowed does not make it right.

Additionally, it appears that you are saying it's fine for someone in the entertainment industry to state an opinion. But if you have an opposite opinion then you may as well live in Iraq?

Sorry - I don't get it. It's OK for one side to have an opinion - just not the general masses?

Frank Baker

Love your work.

Envious of your talent.

Hoping I've completely misunderstood your point.

Posted by: stockwell at March 25, 2003 10:28 AM

Well, y'know PAD, we *don't* live in a country where there are stiff penalties for criticizing the government. Moore wasn't arrested. He was booed. Why? Because some other citizens didn't like what he was saying. That's their right as well. Moore has been criticized in the press, sure. But that's the flip side of taking shots at the President on the most public of stages.

Despite what the anti-Bush crowd would lead us to believe, there is no suppression of speech that is critical of the government. The idea that members of the Left are somehow in *danger* in Hollywood is one of the more absurd concepts that has been floated. While there are more conservatives in Hollywood than is widely known, that number is nothing compared to the number of hard-core liberals on both sides of the camera. The conservatives tend to stay quiet to preserve *their* jobs.

The biggest problems I had with Moore's comments (and the comments of many other Hollywood Liberals...a special breed mind you) is that they are mindless and lacking in much substance. There is plenty of debate going on about the war. As there should be. There is no suppression of speech or debate. To insinuate otherwise is intellectually dishonest. The First Ammendment guarantees your right to speak. It doesn't demand that others have to like it.

Posted by: Den Wilson at March 25, 2003 10:40 AM

Moore has a right to express his opinion whenever he wants to. However, just because someone has a right to do something does not mean that it isn't in poor taste for the current forum.

People don't watch the Oscars to hear political debates. They watch them so that they can see the pretty people in pretty clothes give vacuous speeches thanking people in an insincere manner.

I remember one year when every presenter and recipient used the forum to give ten minute speeches on their pet political issue, including Richard Gere trying to produce a mass telepathic channelling to the premier of China.

So, he got booed and a few people in the media criticized him. If that's the worst he suffers, I don't see how this is a problem. After all, all of the "booers" were just exhibiting their right to express their opinion.

The real scandal from the Oscars this year was everyone applauding a rapist getting the Best Director award.

Posted by: Zach at March 25, 2003 10:40 AM

I'm forced to agree with the coments here, PAD. I personally am against this war, and I have a shelf full of almost every book you've written sitting above my bed, so I'm definately a fan.

With that said, you're wrong. Moore was NOT dragged off in chains and shot in the street. Nor was anyone else. Simply because you get a backlash for an opinion doesn't make the opinion illegal, it makes the opinion in the minority.

THATS IT.

There are more people supporting this war than against it. God help me, I have no idea why, but they are just as entitled to their opinion. Plus they are allowed to go fight if they want, or sit at home and hope they don't get drafted.

My basic beef with Moore's speech is that he didn't set it up, he didn't play it smooth, and all he did was attack. He didn't make an intelligent comment, he just attacked.

Posted by: Jeff at March 25, 2003 10:46 AM

So, it's OK for someone to make a political speech at an awards ceremony, but it's not OK for the audience to disagree? I feel that the booing of Michael Moore wasn't that so many people were in disagreement with what he said, but rather the place he said it. It was supposed to be a time of celebration.

And he probably loved being booed. Gives him more air time later than Adrian Brody exploring Hallie Berry's G.I. tract with his tongue. He's no longer an advocate for the little people (as he was in "Roger and Me"). He's now put himself as being more important than any message he wants to convey.

Hell, he probably wishes he didn't win the Oscar so he could claim that the voting there was fictitious as well.

Posted by: Chris Grillo at March 25, 2003 10:52 AM

I find that the biggest censors are typicallly not government sponsored, created, or endorsed.

Some people on one side of the fence make faces at people on the other side of the fence, and some people on the other side of the fence make faces at people on the one side of the fence. If only they hadn't replaced the grass with artificial turf...

Come on and ride the fence, and ride it...

Posted by: Scavenger at March 25, 2003 10:56 AM

WE have given celebrities the voice to speak with. WE have elevated them to a place of superiority over the common man. It's why WE care what soda they drink, clothes they wear, or hair style they have.

But WE can't stand when they use that voice in a way WE don't like. This goes the same for Charlton Heston as well as Michael Moore.

These people are Americans too, and have the right to speak their mind. And because of where WE have placed them in society, they get to use microphones. They get to speak for those of us who don't have the microphones and cameras.

Right now, however, there's a campaign to silence voices of dissent. If you don't believe it, then take off your idealogical blinders (of whatever bent) and read over the past two day entries on this blog! And this is just people who like Peter David enough to visit his website.

There are posts that are equivicating speaking out against the government to calling soldiers "baby killers" and that expressing your opinion is the same as blowing up a building.

As far as Michael Moore being "booed off stage"...the exact same speech recieved huge applause at the Idependent Spirit Awards. Attended by many of the same people, yet shown not on network, but on a small cable channel. Hmmmm....I guess it's called "being Politicaly Correct" for a reason.

Posted by: Stephen Robinson at March 25, 2003 10:59 AM

Hollywood is nothing if not about perception. If Justin Timberlake uses his first ammendment rights to make insulting comments about his teenybopper fans, it just might hurt him financially. This is not the same thing as the government dragging you out of bed in the middle of the night and killing you. It's insulting to people who live in such a country to compare to two.

Michael Moore publically insulted the president of the United States at war time and then took his Oscar, rode home in a limo, and kicked back in his mansion. Oh no! Will he face any real repercussions? Most of the people *truly* offended don't see his movies anyway.

Now, if someone insulted Saddam Hussein publically, they'd be shot dead and so would their family. Maybe even their friends for kicks.

Meanwhile, we can express our views on this board and any other board, in the newspapers, on television -- that's true freedom. It's the spirited debate you see in this country every day.

Now, opposition to *rudeness* is another thing. Just because you're free to say something, that doesn't mean you won't be pelted by rotten tomatoes.

Posted by: Scavenger at March 25, 2003 11:00 AM

Hell, he probably wishes he didn't win the Oscar so he could claim that the voting there was fictitious as well.

Actually, he was making a big bru-ha-ha before the awards about the voting policies...Something about Sony wasn't willing to send out copies of one of the other documentaries (not his) in the running to the voters so that they could all be judged equally.

Posted by: Rob at March 25, 2003 11:03 AM

Umm, could it be PAD started with the Moore thing and sequed into a rant on the mischaracterization of some protestors in general?

I'm definately on the opposite side of the fence of the protestors, but not all can be lumped into a single anti-american bucket.

If PAD was just talking about the Oscars, then I don't get it either. Sounded like everyone exercized their free speech, not just the moron on stage.

God bless America! After all, Moore still has a tongue which he wouldn't have if he dissed ol' Saddam.

Still, idiot though he is, his comments at the Oscars do not support Saddam, they had nothing to do with Saddam.

If, of course, our service men saw it, I could see them being very discouraged and angry. THAT'S the problem with using that forum. He may not have a thing against the military (he may have, I've no idea) but the grunts protecting his right to be an idiot deserve better from him and all of us.

Posted by: Jim at March 25, 2003 11:09 AM

Has Mr. Moore been deprived of his right to free speech?

Have the Dixie Cicks?

Richard Gere?

Peter David?

No. Not one.

The chicks chose to speak out while on foreign(albeit friendly)soil. If they choose to open their mouths and voice their opinions, should they not expect a reaction?

Sheryl Crow has no problem whatsoever choosing which conflict she will support. Want to know where she stands? Don't ask her. Just check to see who's in the White House.

No one is asking for their opinions. They are offered freely. You nor they would be bitching if box office or album sales went up. That would be a just reaction to their comments. All else is some ridiculous persecution due to the ignorance of those who disagree.

Have you taken to task Mr. Moore for his blatant reconstruction of reality in Bowling For Columbine? Check out opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003233 to find out how well the oh so altruistic Moore bends reality to create his argument.

Against the war? Fine. Against all war? Great too. I understand opposing war across the board. But cut out the sanctimonious bullshit. It is the tone of much of the opposition coming from public figures that has caused people to react so strongly.

The argument that there happen to be other evil men in the world besides Saddam doesn't wash. Neither does condemning this action because Bush is in the driver's seat. Likewise to those who conveniently brush aside the reasons we as a nation have stated why we are engaged in this war just to fulfill their momentary needs.

The US has been taken to task for not entering WWII early enough.

We went to Bosnia with much less at stake for our security than in this action.

Accusations have been charged to both Clinton and Bush for not preventing 9/11.

One cannot have it both ways.

I will admit that there were diplomatic shortcomings in preparation for this action. I will also submit that there are nations who knowingly undermined the US for less than admirable purposes. Now France wants to ride the fence. Now we find out that Russia has been supplying illegal arms to Iraq.

I hate looking at our soldiers faces on tv as they are held prisoner. I cried on Sunday as news of dead and captured soldiers were being reported. No one wants war. But the world will be safer with Saddam gone. The more I research Saddam and his reign, the more I am convinced that the people of Iraq need to be freed from this regime. If democracy can gain some sort of foothold there and is allowed to grow, even though it will take years and many hardships, then it will be better for future generations of Iraqis. Is there a chance that democracy won't take hold? Sure. But the alternative has been staring us in the face for years and it has only gotten worse.

Hope this helps you understand why sympathy for Moore and the chicks is sorely misplaced.

Posted by: Julio Diaz at March 25, 2003 11:29 AM

Stephen Robinson posted:

"Michael Moore publically insulted the president of the United States at war time and then took his Oscar, rode home in a limo, and kicked back in his mansion. Oh no! Will he face any real repercussions? Most of the people *truly* offended don't see his movies anyway."

Ummm... I truly doubt that Moore lives in a mansion. I don't think he's even all that wealthy. A common misconception equates fame with fortune, when in fact there are plenty of famous people that aren't that rich.

Now, as to whether he rented a limo for the night, I can't say. I'd consider it more likely that he showed up in a trendy hybrid vehicle.

Also, it's importnat to note that none of Moore's documentary films have been bankrolled by Hollywood. The funding for "Bowling For Columbine" came from Canadian sources.

Posted by: William at March 25, 2003 11:33 AM

I have many problems with the way war protestors (for lack of a better term) are treated for their position on this issue. The biggest problem is the way most protest statements are typically rebutted and written-off by someone saying "well, if you don't like it, you are un-American."

That kind of attitude does not argue for the pro-war position to me. It says: "if we could drag you out of bed in the middle of the night and shoot you, we would."

I am anti-war. I don't believe this war is an effort to "protect my freedom" (whatever that means) or to liberate the people of Iraq. I don't believe President Bush has been honest about his motives for attacking Iraq. This whole thing started (supposedly) to hunt down and bring to justice the terrorists responsible for the September 11th attacks. Does that ring a bell with anyone? Have the terrorists been captured? Are we any closer to destroying terrorism? Or are we simply being distracted by pursuing an easier, more locatable threat?

I am anti-war, but I am a greatful American citizen. The two are not mutally exclusive.

Posted by: Robert at March 25, 2003 11:35 AM

Peter,

I admire your work and I respect and appreciate that your opinions on Iraq are different from mine. But, I have to ask, what are you talking about?

Michael Moore is not going to be arrested for the remarks he made. He had the first amendment right to make them. People who disagree with Moore have the first amendment right to say so. Trent Lott had the right to say America would have been better off had Strom Thurmond become president in 1948. Nevertheless that statement cost him. The Dixie Chicks have the right to say whatever they want against the president, but I don't have to buy their CD's if I don't want to.

Perhaps your point is that you don't like being called anti-American or pro-Saddam for opposing the war (if indeed you are being called that). Fair enough. I don't like being ridiculed by liberals for my beliefs either. Mudslinging occurs across the political spectrum, and if you think the left doesn't engage in it you should take a close listen to James Carville or Paul Begala sometime. Heck, you should listen to what Michael Moore said at the Oscars.

Incidentally, what do you suppose the response would have been had George W. Bush used the nonword "fictiction"?

Posted by: Kalshane at March 25, 2003 11:36 AM

I think the point PAD is trying to make is that any commentary against the War or the president is seen as anti-American and anti-troops. It seems anytime decides to level criticism they're treated as if they support terrorism or hate this country.

That's not to say that some of the criticism that's being made isn't off-base or untrue, but on the flipside you've got the fanatics that believe the US and Bush can do no wrong. The problem is the pro-Bush fanatics (Not saying everyone pro-Bush or pro-war is a fanatic, far from it) are praised, while the legitimate critics are viewed in the same light as the fanatical dissenters.

People on both sides need to take a step back and actually listen what others are saying rather than just dismissing it as Bush-worship or hating America.

Posted by: Robert at March 25, 2003 11:49 AM

>>The only thing new about a politically-oriented speech being given on the Oscars is the degree of hostility with which such endeavors are met in this country.

Actually, I remember an anti-Israel speech made by Vanessa Redgrave at the Oscars that met with a lot of hostility.

Posted by: William at March 25, 2003 11:50 AM

"The two are not mutally exclusive."

I meant to write "mutually," of course. I don't even know what "mutally" means. Maybe something to do radiation....

Posted by: jfurdell at March 25, 2003 11:51 AM

It's frustration.

Bush didn't exactly win with a mandate from the masses (or with the most votes, for that matter). But instead of acting more moderately, which would seem to be the will of the people, he's been Arch Conservative Man since day one: growing the deficit, removing environmental protections, disregarding the UN. And now, he's led us into a jihad. With few allies. And no way to pay for it.

This all adds up to create a frustrated minority (myself included) that's more vocal than the majority.

'04 will be interesting to say the least.

Posted by: ERBFan at March 25, 2003 12:05 PM

First let me start with this. I am a staunch supporter of my commander-in-chief and our armed forces. I pray for a swift American victory with the fewest possible casualties on either side.

Having said that I would like to add this. While I do not agree with Michael Moore or the Dixie Chicks I am also a staunch supporter of their right to voice their opinion. If Mr. Moore ever makes a documentary that I am interested in I will watch it. And I will continue to listen to the Dixie Chicks because I like their music. These are personal choices. Your choices may differ. I feel blessed that I live in a country that allows me to make the choices I make and allows the Dixie Chicks and Mr. Moore the right to make their's.

To quote John Wayne when asked about Jane Fonda: "While I don't agree with what she says, I support her right to say it".

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 25, 2003 12:08 PM

I think we already covered some of this ground yesterday, but that's okay, an open discourse of opinion is always worth continuing. Once again, I agree with Moore's sentiments, although I think he could have found a subtler way of expressing them. On the flip side, I support the audience in their response, be it cheers or boos, but bear in mind, what we heard on television isn't necessarily an accurate representation of what happened. Everything goes through a big sound mixing board with lots of buttons and sparkly things on it. The technician turns down one mike and raises the volume on another, or the director, if he chose, could instruct him to add a few additional sound elements to the mix. The next time you see a clip of Moore's speech, notice how the audience reaction doesn't necessarily correspond to what you're hearing. As to some people's earlier comments about our supposedly free society, you need to get out more. A few weeks ago, a lawyer got arrested in a New York shopping mall for wearing a T-shirt urging peace. Not anarchy, nor a racist message or something is poor taste. Peace. And he was arrested. The irony of that situation is that it was a shirt he'd just bought in that very mall. That same week, the webmaster of a White House parody site, who had posted a mock bio of Dick Cheney's wife was sent a letter on White House paper strongly suggesting he take it down. As it turned out, Cheney said he had nothing to do with the letter after all. It was a White House lawyer who thought, well, it was a good idea. An implied threat is still a threat. It doesn't make any difference if you're holding a gun to my head, have it un-holstered on your belt with your hand six inches above it. In either case, all I'll be able to think about is, 'This guy is going to shoot me!' That implied threat is to get me black-listed. Or audit my taxes. Or put together a dossier on my daily activities. Or tap my phones. Or monitor my mail. 'That could never happen here in America!' I hear you say. Tell that to the late Richard Nixon; those are all tricks from his play book three decades ago.

Posted by: Jack at March 25, 2003 12:14 PM

Of course he had the right to say what he said. But we also had the right to boo him off the stage. Isnt America great?

Posted by: Tilman at March 25, 2003 12:29 PM

Seems to me that Peter's comments were prompted not by those who booed Michael Moore for what he said in his acceptance speech but more by comments like e.g. on the previous Oscar thread, where someone wrote: "Michael Moore needs to be shot". Not exactly an endorsement of first amendment rights.

And there certainly is a tendency to try and silence people who are against the Iraq War by declaring them unpatriotic, anti-American, associating them with Saddam Hussein or declaring them enemies of the US armed forces. Not that this is restricted to the campaign against Hollywood Liberals (not that I would consider Michael Moore one of those). The same applies to those on the right opposed to the war (e.g. when David Frum recently accused fellow conservatives Patrick Buchanan and Robert Novak of hating their country and wanting it to lose the war in National Review). And of course it approaches surreality when you see people who avoided the draft (or at least front-line service) when there still was a draft, or people who have no intention of joining the military calling into question the patriotism of decorated veterans because they oppose or opposed George W. Bush's war against Iraq. Or when politicians who sermonize about the need to "support our soldiers" at the same time propose slashing cuts in veterans' medical, disability and benefit programs...

Posted by: Kirk Cekada at March 25, 2003 12:41 PM

I did'nt see Moore's speech, so I won't comment on that.

But I agrree with PAD that protesting the war doesn't equate to not supporting the men and women in uniform.

Iraq was contained, and I think Bush did a lousy job of getting the other nations on board. That being said, the war is in progress, and now we have to see it through as quickly as possible.

History will show whether or not Bush made the right decision.

Posted by: Sean Ferguson at March 25, 2003 12:54 PM

I have to agree with the majority of the previous comments. While I believe that every American has the right to express their views (political, religious, etc.), there is a time and place to do so. The Academy Awards is not a political convention. (Well, not in the usual sense.) It is a forum to celebrate excellence in movies. That's it. Michael Moore's comments should have been suited for that venue. Every presenter and nominee were told beforehand not to express their political view whether they be anti-war or pro-war. Nobody mentions that part. It wasn't like pro-war opionions were tolerated while anti-war ones weren't. I keep hearing about how people are feeling the backlash from speaking out against the war, but what about the people who feel that this war is justified? Are they treated any differently? I've seen those people treated with derision and mocked as incompetent warmongeres similar to the treatment that our President is receiving. This is your website and it is perfectly acceptable or you to express your views. I don't think that you will be dragged off in chains or shot for your opinions. If you win an award though (and your books should definately!) please be gracious and acknowledge your win without any extraneous views that have nothing to do with why you are there.

Posted by: Peter David at March 25, 2003 01:02 PM

>>Seems to me that Peter's comments were prompted not by those who booed Michael Moore for what he said in his acceptance speech but more by comments like e.g. on the previous Oscar thread, where someone wrote: "Michael Moore needs to be shot". Not exactly an endorsement of first amendment rights.<<

Yes. And I read that right after I read the article in EW talking about how country radio stations had banished the Dixie Chicks from their playlists, while people around the country smashed their CDs (although apparently it hasn't affected their record sales, so that's something.)

What I'm saying--and I thought this was clear, but obviously it wasn't--is that for many people in this country, freedom of speech is not met with more freedom of speech, as it should be. It's met instead with threats. With boycotts. With attacks not on what's being said, but on those who are saying them. With hostility that those who have opposing views would dare to say such a thing, and they must therefore be punished for those actions.

I'm not debating the *right* to take these actions. I'm questioning the wisdom of those who live in a free society showing such naked hatred for a society that permits freedom. And I'm pointing out that, if you take that view to its logical extreme, you have Iraq...which we're supposed to be fighting against.

And for the record, despite the fact that I disagreed with Vanessa Redgrave's "Palestinian thugs" comments, I felt the professional backlash it had against her was completely unjustified. So her political views differed from others. That didn't make her any less an actress.

The Oscar cast isn't the place to make a political statement? Bull. It's beamed across the world, and most of the acceptance speeches are boring as hell. It's the perfect place. Livens things up. I'm all for livening things up.

I have to say, though, that I think Adrien Brody, the actor who won for "The Pianist" totally overshadowed Moore. He expressed anti-war sentiments, but did it in such a beautiful, heart-felt and stylish way that not only did he get the band to stop playing so he could continue (an astounding feat in and of itself), but he brought everyone to their feet. I personally thought it was the best moment of the evening. But you can't have one extreme without the other.

PAD

Posted by: Colier Rannd at March 25, 2003 01:16 PM

From Jim:

"Has Mr. Moore been deprived of his right to free speech?

Have the Dixie Cicks?

Richard Gere?

Peter David?

No. Not one."

You're right of course. What has been almost as bad though, is the subjugation of the corporate news media. While only Helen whatshername has been able to question openly the administration in its press confrences(and then only Ari "Americans need to realize they have to watch what they say" Fleischer.

Basically the edict is this: If you question us, we won't give you access to the president,administration or the war. Now the press is "imbedded" with the military and reports are subject to military censorship before they are broadcast. If you think this is truly the most televised military action in history, you're only half right.

As for the calls of protestors "un-american" and the like, I myself was recently accused of "obviously wanting Saddam Hussein to take over the world" because I wish to see Mr. Bush impeached.For me, that is like the leap often made between gay marraige and sex with monkeys.

It is not just the "war" in Iraq that I am against,but the total "war on terrorism" which to me is just an excuse to get rid of our civil liberties. Shortly after 9/11(I'll have to look up the exact date, or just feel free to email me about this) Bush signed an executive order that basically repealed the Freedom of Information Act. Now there is the Security Enhancement Act of 2003.

Bush,Ashcroft and the rest(including the congress) should all be removed.

Michael Moore and Adrian Brody are my new heroes!

Sorry PAD, if this was too long. I'm just really passionate about it.

Col

Posted by: stockwell at March 25, 2003 01:16 PM

I'm questioning the wisdom of those who live in a free society showing such naked hatred for a society that permits freedom.

Peter, are you saying that those who disagree with Moore or wish to boycott the Dixie Chicks are showing "naked hatred" for the United States? That would be no different than those people who call Michael Moore "anti-American" for expressing his anti-Bush sentiments. Am I misunderstanding you? I hope I am.

Posted by: Greatbear at March 25, 2003 01:22 PM

//The Oscar cast isn't the place to make a political statement? Bull. It's beamed across the world, and most of the acceptance speeches are boring as hell. It's the perfect place. Livens things up. I'm all for livening things up.//

LOL, I can agree with the boring part, which is why I skip most award shows, including this one. But as I said, Moore and everyone else has a right to express their views, but there is a strong popular sentiment that this isn't what the Oscars are "for."

Freedom of speech should always be met with more speech, whether that is booing or simply decided not to buy someone's CD.

I find the idea of a radio station refusing to air an artist's music because of their political views repugnant, but it is their right. After all, the station's owner has the first amendment right to express or choose not to express whatever views they want.

The real problem with this is that we have a culture that worships fame, or even infamy. People who are famous are almost automatically thought of as being smarter or better than the average Joe. It doesn't even matter what someone is famous these days. Look at Monica Lewinski.

Why should we even care what the Dixie Chicks or Martin Sheen or Charlton Hesten think of the war? Take what they say as a grain of salt. Chances are they aren't much more knowledgeable about the subject than you are.

Hell, anyone who cheers an admitted rapist who fled the country rather than pay his due, is automatically an idiot in my not-so opinion.

Posted by: Stephen Robinson at March 25, 2003 01:33 PM

PAD:

I detest organized boycotts, as well (unless it's a boycott against a corporation that violates the law -- not hiring minorities, for example).

I believe the answer to free speech is *always* free speech. However, no one has a right to an audience.

Freedom of speech does not equal freedom from risk. I have no real problem with people who opposed Redgrave's anti-semitic nonsense choosing not to see her work and line her pockets.

I have friends who refuse to patronize Dominos because proceeds go to anti-abortion causes. I find this perfectly legitimate (however, I still on occasion eat at Dominos -- I have no problem with their choosing to spend their profits however they wish).

I suppose it's a case of everyone's mileage varying.

Posted by: Roger Tang at March 25, 2003 01:35 PM

Ghahhhh!

Would folks READ what's being said???

Free speech is NOT being met with free speech...it's being met with coercive action. THAT'S what PAD is talking about!

Being banned from playlists? State legislatures passing resolutions to require free concerts for specified causes? Speech, my ass! That's just political retribution for taking an unpopular stand and in no way justified under the philosophy of free speech.

Yeah, go slag celebrities for taking unpopular stands, but don;t blacklist them and don't pass measures in lawmaking bodies to have them do this or that.

Posted by: Cheryl at March 25, 2003 01:35 PM

What no one has mentioned is that the show's director turned up the music before Mr. Moore finished speaking in an attempt to stop him. And it wasn't exactly like he'd taken extra time over his diatribe.

Posted by: Andrew C. at March 25, 2003 01:38 PM

Apologies for the length of this note. The following comes from www.nomorefakenews.com and it looks to be a FICTITIOUS "What If?" scenario written by the author Jon Rappoport:

COMPLETING MICHAEL MOORE'S OSCAR SPEECH

March 25.  The man has chutzpah.  A fictitious president is not a phrase many people would use at the podium on Oscar night.  Then he goes on:

"But you know, folks, if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, he would have been fictitious too.  That's right.  Oh, those Democrats were cheating every which way themselves.

"Don't you get it?  We are ruled by One Party Posing As Two.  Despite last-minute cop-outs, the Democrats voted war powers for Bush.  The Democrats are under the same oil umbrella as the Republicans.  It just isn't as obvious.  We don't need a Dick Cheney in the White House to be run by oil.

"The political system is corrupt all the way up and down on both sides of the aisle.  The Democrats just do a better job of pretending they care about 'the people.'

"If I could wave a magic wand, everybody in this country would stay home on election day in 2004.  Nobody would vote.  Now THAT would send a real message to Washington.  That would finally remove the mandate we give to the government to act on behalf of all of us.

"I've only been telling half of the story.  And tonight I thought I'd fill in the rest.  My job is to expose the phony baloney, so there it is.  Wake up, everybody.  You're being whipsawed by both parties.  Don't you get it?  It's a good-cop bad- cop number they keep running on us."

Scattered applause starts to swell, and suddenly everyone in the audience stands up and cheers wildly, as if a trance has been broken.  

The dismal Oscar ratings spike all over America.  People find themselves clicking to ABC.  Mickey Mouse rushes out on to the stage and raises his little fist in the air and shouts, "And the big corporations are feeding both heads of the One Party Posing As Two!"

He brings the house down.  The audience is screaming GO MICKEY!  

A spell has been cast off.  People look at each other, as if seeing for the first time.  The filters from the eyes have been removed.    

Posted by: GnuHopper at March 25, 2003 01:39 PM

Yeah, whatever.

So what did you think of last week's ANGEL?

Posted by: Surges at March 25, 2003 01:42 PM

You have the right to speak your mind - but we also reserve the right to boo at you if we don't agree. Free Speech IS a two-way street.

I personally thought that Bowling for Colombine guy was incredibly insulting, and thus the audience has it's free speech to boo him off stage.

Although, as the Daily Show pointed out, they where giving the award to a Political Activist - so it shouldn't have been much of a surprise he's go and say something stupid

And yes - I call what he said "Stupid" Thats my right to free Speech.

Please stop acting like we're in a dictatorship just becuase people don't agree with you.

Posted by: Pack at March 25, 2003 01:45 PM

I don't even like the Dixie Chicks but has anyone seen the article in the NYT (it was today or yesterday) that said there was reason to believe that the "boycotts" and "demonstrations" were organized by radio conglomerates that had strong business and financial ties to George W. going back to his days as governor of Texas?

And if the Dixie Chicks record sales (which the conglomerates can't control) go up even when their radio airplay (which the conglomerates do control) goes down, what does that say?

Posted by: Bill Mulligan at March 25, 2003 01:52 PM

"With attacks not on what's being said, but on those who are saying them."

Which pretty well describes Moore's little diatribe.

In a related matter, Tony Blair, who you had previously said you "felt sorry for", seems to be turning British public opinion to his side--new polls show a majority favoring the war for the first time and his personal popularity has rebounded.

Not that this makes his actions right or wrong. Indeed, it would seem that polls do not determine what positions he deems correct, unlike some other politicians. THOSE are the ones I feel sorry for.

Posted by: Rob at March 25, 2003 02:04 PM

How silly. The only freedom is of speech?

While it might not be my reaction, organizing boycotts, banishing people from playlists, et al, are equally protected rights. As they should be. Publicly expressed views are going to get a reaction. If they aren't to your liking, then by-golly, either have the balls to stand up for what you think or slink off an whine. Those are equally your rights.

As for some guy who got arrested for a peace t-shirt? Rest of the story, please. That isn't all there is to it. CLEARLY.

As for someone getting a letter from a White House lawyer for something that could be libelous? Big surprise. Mrs. Cheney is not a public figure, her husband is. Your right to free speech ends when it is damaging to another person's reputation.

I defend the rights to protest the war, but I would love to hear alternatives to war instead of that it's just a bad idea. It ain't too bad for those whom Saddam is lining up to kill next. I for one would love a workable alternative.

What is it?

Posted by: EClark1849 at March 25, 2003 02:37 PM

<

"What I'm saying--and I thought this was clear, but obviously it wasn't--is that for many people in this country, freedom of speech is not met with more freedom of speech, as it should be. It's met instead with threats. With boycotts. With attacks not on what's being said, but on those who are saying them. With hostility that those who have opposing views would dare to say such a thing, and they must therefore be punished for those actions.">>

With all due respect, Mr. David, just how does a fan go about registering his dissent with a comment made by a famous artist or celebrity? We don't have access to a microphone or national news outlets like they do. We could write them a letter that we don't even know if they get, much less read. So yes, the ONLY real voice a fan may have is CHOICE. That's all a boycott is really. No one is FORCED to support a boycott .Or unpopular statements...except maybe in countries like...I dunno....Iraq?

Posted by: Mitch Maltenfort at March 25, 2003 02:37 PM

Mr. David,

Hate to tell you you're flat-out wrong on your own web page, but...

Whaddaya mean "new?!"

The hostility's at least as old as the term "Fighting Words." Look at this country's Red Scares in the 1920's and the 1950's.

Puncture someone's precious vision of how the country operates, and they react as if you were threatening their physical well-being.

This country doesn't need sensitivity training, it needs thick-skin training.

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at March 25, 2003 02:44 PM

Julio: Michael Moore lives in Manhattan, but probably not in a mansion; apartments are expensive enough here!

Joe N.: Good points, Mark Evanier also talked about the sound mixing in his blog yesterday.

Robert: Yeah, "fictition" was pretty unfortunate (shades of Fred Durst's "agreeance") but Michael was obviously flustered, he really didn't express himself well...

Which is pretty much my view of things, Peter, and I note that you also mention this in additional comments. I absolutely agree that Adrian Brody's speech conveyed the exact same unhappiness with the war, but it was the WAY he said it that resulted not only in the orchestra not playing him off but in the standing ovation. Michael's way too set in how he does things to change his stripes now, and I'm sure he's accepted the boos as the price he pays for going overboard with the stridency. It's why, as Luke noted and as Jon Stewart also said last night, viewers (the left included!) like the IDEA of Michael Moore better than the REALITY. (Remember, the audience was very much with him until he opened his mouth!)

Posted by: Julio Diaz at March 25, 2003 02:45 PM

A few things:

The Domino's thing is something of an urban legend. The company has never given to Operation Rescue or any other pro-life organization. However, the founder of the company is STAUNCHLY pro-life and has made several personal donations to OR and similar causes. Of course, he made most of that money through Domino's. So indirectly, yes, it's possible that if you buy pizza from Domino's, some of your money may go to OR. But it's incorrect to say that the company is doing this. Details on this are at the Urban Legends Reference Pages - the specific info is at http://www.snopes.com/business/alliance/domino.asp .

Loved the stuff that Andrew C. posted from John Rappoport -- couldn't agree more.

As to Cheryl's comments on the director turning the music up to drown Moore out, Mark Evanier reports that prevailing sentiment around Hollywood also has it that the boos may have been somewhat slanted, not largely coming from the crowd but instead from stagehands who knew where the house mics were located. ME does post some info that may contradict this, as well:

http://www.povonline.com/News032203.htm#032403c

Finally, as to Pack's comments: the effect of the Dixie Chicks boycott -- despite increased record sales -- could still hurt them. While the album sales charts are based strictly on sales, singles charts are based on a mix of sales and airplay, with airplay getting more weight. They could conceivably never have another hit single should the boycott efforts stay in place. And while that's unlikely to hurt their current album or backlist, as awareness of those discs is already high, it could certainly be detrimental to sales of future albums (the average joe isn't aware a record exists until they hear a song on the radio). Their concert ticket sales don't seem to have suffered yet, though, so I think they'll be OK.

And yes, corporate radio sucks, and I wouldn't be surprised if the conspiracy theory you're posting is true. I've heard of stations pulling the Chicks for a bare handful of complaints, and I've also heard that organized right-wing groups are mass-spamming radio stations to pull the Chicks.

Posted by: Julio Diaz at March 25, 2003 02:51 PM

Elayne said: "Michael Moore lives in Manhattan, but probably not in a mansion; apartments are expensive enough here!"

Having read STUPID WHITE MEN, I knew that Moore lived in Manhattan, but somehow forgot about it when posting.

Having seen some of the holes in the wall friends call "apartments" in Manhattan, and having found that they pay significantly MORE than I pay to rent a 2500 sq. ft. house on a half-acre lot in Melbourne, FL, I know you're correct about the cost of living, too!

I'm not pretending that Moore doesn't do well financially -- surely better than I -- but I doubt he's considered wealthy. Maybe lower upper class.

Posted by: EClark1849 at March 25, 2003 03:03 PM

<

"I agrree with PAD that protesting the war doesn't equate to not supporting the men and women in uniform.">>

Ultimately, do you know how stupid that really sounds? It's like protesting sports but being FOR the people that play them. Against art, but FOR the people that create it. Or protesting books, but being FOR the people that write or publish them, So really, explain to me how you can be against the war, but FOR the people that fight it?

<<"Iraq was contained, and I think Bush did a lousy job of getting the other nations on board. ">>

I have a problem with "containment". You haven't tamed the tiger, you've merely caged it. That's fine if you're outside the cage. But if you were in the cage with the tiger, I wonder what your response would be to people outside the cage who merely told you to "Be patient, we're discussing it."

Posted by: Brian Czako at March 25, 2003 03:08 PM

EClark1849 queries:

>>>

So really, explain to me how you can be against the war, but FOR the people that fight it?

<<<

Simple. We all want them to come home safely whether we're for the war or not.

Posted by: Manda at March 25, 2003 03:17 PM

"Ultimately, do you know how stupid that really sounds? It's like protesting sports but being FOR the people that play them."

Except for the massive amounts of negatives in the sentence, it actually does make sense. It's basically the "love the sinner, hate the sin" stance: I didn't want the troops to invade Iraq (not without UN backing, anyway), but now that they're over there, I hope they come back safely.

Posted by: Peter David at March 25, 2003 03:17 PM

>>Peter, are you saying that those who disagree with Moore or wish to boycott the Dixie Chicks are showing "naked hatred" for the United States? That would be no different than those people who call Michael Moore "anti-American" for expressing his anti-Bush sentiments. Am I misunderstanding you? I hope I am.<<

No, I'm saying those who feel that Michael Moore should be shot are showing naked hatred for him personally, that those stations refusing to play the DC's songs in retaliation are showing naked hatred for the concept of free speech, and that those attempting to punish the lead singer of the DC's for stating her opinion by organizing boycotts are just plain idiots.

PAD

Posted by: Peter David at March 25, 2003 03:20 PM

>>You have the right to speak your mind - but we also reserve the right to boo at you if we don't agree. Free Speech IS a two-way street.<<

Booing is not the same. Booing is the utilizing of the "Heckler's Veto." The attempt not to meet free speech with free speech, but instead the endeavor to stop the other person from speaking entirely.

Read books by Nat Hentoff on free speech. Strongly recommended.

PAD

Posted by: Tim Robertson at March 25, 2003 03:21 PM

You know, the more I think about it, Moore was not really voicing an opinion on the war, but really an anti-Bush view. Nothing new there, as I also read Stupid White Men. Still and all, I think Moore is simply against ANYTHING Bush does, even if it is good for the country. And while I think the Oscars is not the time nor place for how he delivered that message, you do gotta love the guy for doing it. No fear in him at all. I think he should be the new host for "jackass"

Posted by: stockwell at March 25, 2003 03:26 PM

Peter, I agree with you that if anyone truly believes Moore should be shot is expressing an unacceptable position. The radio stations removing the DC from their playlists are simply responding to their audiences. Could they show some backbone? Sure, but this is corporate radio we're talking about. Accountants make the decisions. And while I don't usually participate in organized boycotts myself (I like to keep them personal) I understand what those people are doing and why they're doing it. I don't share your view that they are "idiots", but you're entitled to your opinion.

Posted by: stockwell at March 25, 2003 03:27 PM

I think he should be the new host for "jackass"

Well, you certainly described Moore correctly.

Posted by: Artimoff at March 25, 2003 03:50 PM

A speech is not "open discusion". The crowd cheering Moore is free speech. The crowd booing Moore is conservative america pressing their boot on his neck? or is that free speech too? It's one way or another.

PAD you are not opening a discussion, you made a statement. Two differnet things. One is welcome the other is forced upon anyone with in earshot. (webshot?)

Discuss. :)

Posted by: Scavenger at March 25, 2003 03:50 PM

It's worth pointing out (again) that Moore's speech was word for word the same as the one he gave Saturday at the Independent Spirit Awards. It was pretty obvious he was going to win, and it was obvious what he was going to say, and the production folks were ready.

Posted by: Scavenger at March 25, 2003 03:53 PM

Artimoff: PAD gets to make statements..it's his site...we come here to read his opinions. That's why his name is up there in the address bar.

And trying to drown out something you don't like to hear isn't free speech. It's simply an extension of putting your fingers in your ears and going la la la la la...except you're trying to do it for other people as well.

Posted by: Pack at March 25, 2003 04:09 PM

I understand the concerns expressed by people who feel that complaining about the BBs (Boos & boycotts) comes as close to trampling on one group of people's rights to free speech as the BBs themselves come to trampling another groups but consider that the courts frequently take into account the "chilling effect." Suppose you work for a company and your benevolent boss says he doesn't want to be surrounded by yes-men so everyone is encouraged to speak their mind. Your buddy says, "Hey wouldn't it be helpful if the company started making widgets to go with our gizmos." Boss turns to him and says, "You're fired." Now granted your buddy wasn't shot or dragged out of bed in the middle of the night. And granted the boss didn't promise there would be no consequences to speaking your mind. But would you believe that you still had free speech in that environment?

To the person who said how could you be against the war but for the people fighting it, one group of people says, "I want to send you far from home into a place where you're not wanted so people can shoot at you." and the other group says, "I don't want to send you there." Who's got your best interests at heart?

Stockwell said that taking the DC off the air was corporate america being timid but if the "people" are against the band, why are their album sales going up? And why are we even talking about a mediocre country act when the Congress is about to pass a budget that's cutting taxes for the richest one percent of the country which means huge cuts in programs that serve the other 99 percent of the people in this country... Hmmm, why would corporations want to distract us with trivial concerns like what the lead singer of the Dixie Chicks is saying at a time like this...?

One of the problems I have with this is the refusal of conservatives to be honest about this. I mean, c'mon, let's imagine that Bruce Willis had won an Oscar (I know that takes a lot of imagining...) and during his acceptance speech, he started voicing his support for the war. Then he gets booed off the stage. Is anybody really going to claim that talk radio and Chris Matthews and FoxNews wouldn't be screaming bloody murder about how the "Hollywood Liberals" wouldn't let the "voice of America" be heard?

Posted by: Danny Southard at March 25, 2003 04:32 PM

>Robert: Yeah, "fictition" was >pretty unfortunate (shades of >Fred Durst's "agreeance")

Yeah, but the BEST ones are when Mike Tyson said "I'm gonna fade into bolivion" after losing a fight, and Michael Jackson's father, in response to Michael, said "I think he meant 'gurgitating'...well, he gurgitated all the way to the bank." Those were way bester than anything Moore said.

Posted by: Ken M. at March 25, 2003 04:39 PM

Ok, there is NO PROOF what-so-ever that "The majority of the American people support/don't support this war."

POLLS ARE MEANINGLESS unless they actually ask all 270+ miliion of us. A "scientific poll" of 1 million even is still less than 1/2% of the population...

So to whoever made the rather assinine comment above about "the majority of people support this war" is so off-base it's not even funny....

Posted by: David Henderson at March 25, 2003 04:51 PM

"those stations refusing to play the DC's songs in retaliation are showing naked hatred for the concept of free speech"

Since when is exercising freedom of the press the same as "showing naked hatred for the concept of free speech"?

davidh

Posted by: David Henderson at March 25, 2003 04:56 PM

'"I want to send you far from home into a place where you're not wanted so people can shoot at you."'

If anyone *actually* did say that, they certainly wouldn't have your best interests at heart.

But if that's a straw-man argument, which one side of a debate claims is the other side's position, then all you really know is that the straw-man arguer is making stuff up.

davidh

Posted by: Robert at March 25, 2003 05:20 PM

My point about "fictiction" was not to denigrate Michael Moore, but to point out that had such a word come out of President Bush's mouth it would have been seen as more "proof" of his intellectual inadequacy.

I mangle words sometimes. Sometimes it's because I'm tired, and sometimes it's because I'm conflating what I'm currently saying with what I'm planning to say next. Nobody who knows me would consider me unintelligent because of it.

Posted by: Jeremy Schwartz at March 25, 2003 05:34 PM

Booing can be done for many reasons. One reason, as Mr. David mentioned above, is to squelch the right of another to speak freely. The other reason, and the one that I think applies here, is that it is the ONLY or best means of showing that you support an opposing viewpoint. If the naysayers wanted to express their dissent in the same manner then they would have had to wait until they recieved their awards and spoke from the Oscar stage. In this case the Oscar's would be one celebrity after the other voicing their opinions on public policy. This is perhaps not the most appropriate forum to hold such a debate.

Unfortunately, not everyone was going to win an Oscar that night, so they expressed their viewpoint in the form of a "boo".

Booing, or cheering, is the recourse of the person that does not have the stage. Which leads us to the problem with celebraties using the stage to voice their political beliefs. It is a misuse of a stage to speak about things that are unrelated to the reasons fo which you were given the spotlight in the first place. (Michael Moore may be be the only person at the Oscar's that can argue that he was given the stage for his political beliefs, but I digress.)

If people boo celebraties it is not only to stop them from speaking, it is because they do not have the forum to express thier speech AS FREELY as the celebrity who gained the spotlight by virtue of his or her talent. Booing, for this reason, will end when everyone has the same forum to speak. Meaning, when everyone is a celebrity, or no one is.

Posted by: BillRitter at March 25, 2003 05:35 PM

It's a matter of forum, its misuse and respect.

I cringed during the second half of Brody's speech. And Moore's, sigh, had I not been so in shock I would have turned the channel. The Oscars (as have many other similar venues) has more and more ceased to be a forum to acknowledge talent and become a pulpit.

I have nothing but respect for Brody or Moore's opinions no matter how much I might disagree with them. But I cannot agree that recognizing Moore's ability to produce a documentary or Brody's acting is justification for them to preach their political or social views. There are hundreds of appropriate forums for that - their actions were simply taking advantage of a situation. Were I there, I would have booed not their positions, but their hostage taking of an audience and microphone for their own agenda.

I am a Washington DC resident. I cannot describe the amount of times other people's free speech has meant double or triple my commute. I have difficulty respecting war protest when the act of protest impacts me personally. When I get to sit in traffic for 2 hours while war protestors bike for peace in my way or some actor takes and award and preaches - I am likely to be more hostile toward them than if they are on c-span or crossfire.

Posted by: Raphael Sutton at March 25, 2003 05:38 PM

Jim wrote:

"No one wants war. But the world will be safer with Saddam gone."

That's not necessarily the case. Saddam is a horrible, despicable tyrant who should pay for all that he's done but the fact is that before this whole thing started he wasn't a threat to the World at large (yes, he tortures and kills his own people, but so do at least a dozen other heads of state. I don't see us trying to depose them); he knew he had too much to loose if he started another war. Now, however, no matter what happens he knows that the US will never let him be, so what's to stop him (once he's convinced that he'll loose) from contacting terrorist organization and giving them any weapons of mass destruction he may have? This would be his way of getting revenge from the grave. Also, even if Saddam doesn't do this, between the ravages of war and the power vacuum that will ensue, Iraq will be left in such chaos that it isn't a stretch to say that at least some weapons and equipment will find their way into the black market, and from there into who knows whose hands. This has happened before, when the Soviet Union fell in 1991.

And let's not kid ourselves that this whole thing will end up in a democratic Iraq. There are too many factions there that view each other as mortal enemies, the most likely outcome is that one of these factions will end up in power and then proceed to oppress the others; the reconstructions of Germany and Japan after WW II were successful because the citizens of those countries weren't at war with themselves. You might say that this won't happen because the US won't leave Iraq until all these problems are solved, I say that that's highly unlikely. It would take years to get the job done, and the longer we stay there the more we'll be resented by the locals who'll view us as invaders (this might have been less of a problem had there been a real international coalition there). I'm not making this up, the leader of Iraq's Shiite opposition faction has already said that if the US doesn't leave reasonably fast after Saddam is deposed, then they'll throw us out by whatever means

Posted by: Raphael Sutton at March 25, 2003 05:40 PM

Jim wrote:

"No one wants war. But the world will be safer with Saddam gone."

That's not necessarily the case. Saddam is a horrible, despicable tyrant who should pay for all that he's done but the fact is that before this whole thing started he wasn't a threat to the World at large (yes, he tortures and kills his own people, but so do at least a dozen other heads of state. I don't see us trying to depose them); he knew he had too much to loose if he started another war. Now, however, no matter what happens he knows that the US will never let him be, so what's to stop him (once he's convinced that he'll loose) from contacting terrorist organization and giving them any weapons of mass destruction he may have? This would be his way of getting revenge from the grave. Also, even if Saddam doesn't do this, between the ravages of war and the power vacuum that will ensue, Iraq will be left in such chaos that it isn't a stretch to say that at least some weapons and equipment will find their way into the black market, and from there into who knows whose hands. This has happened before, when the Soviet Union fell in 1991.

And let's not kid ourselves that this whole thing will end up in a democratic Iraq. There are too many factions there that view each other as mortal enemies, the most likely outcome is that one of these factions will end up in power and then proceed to oppress the others; the reconstructions of Germany and Japan after WW II were successful because the citizens of those countries weren't at war with themselves. You might say that this won't happen because the US won't leave Iraq until all these problems are solved, I say that that's highly unlikely. It would take years to get the job done, and the longer we stay there the more we'll be resented by the locals who'll view us as invaders (this might have been less of a problem had there been a real international coalition there). I'm not making this up, the leader of Iraq's Shiite opposition faction has already said that if the US doesn't leave reasonably fast after Saddam is deposed, then they'll throw us out by whatever means necessary. If you don't believe me just read this article that came out today:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030325-093356-7311r

Rob wrote:

"As for some guy who got arrested for a peace t-shirt? Rest of the story, please. That isn't all there is to it. CLEARLY."

The only thing that's clear here Rob is that you're commenting on something without checking the facts first. The whole story is that this lawyer was in the mall with his son and they bought peace T-shirts (with the saying "Give Peace a Chance") and put them on. A little later while they where in the food court 2 security guards came and told him to take the shirt off or leave the mall, when he refused to do so they called the police and had him arrested. Here's an article about it:

http://reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=2326548

Pack wrote:

"I don't even like the Dixie Chicks but has anyone seen the article in the NYT (it was today or yesterday) that said there was reason to believe that the "boycotts" and "demonstrations" were organized by radio conglomerates that had strong business and financial ties to George W. going back to his days as governor of Texas?"

I read that Op-Ed too, here's a link to it:

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/25/opinion/25KRUG.html

These are just my opinions which I'm more than willing to debate, just don't call me "unpatriotic", or threaten me, for having them.

Raphy

Posted by: Raphael Sutton at March 25, 2003 05:45 PM

Not sure why the one and a half post thing happened. Sorry about that.

Raphy

Posted by: tinman at March 25, 2003 05:47 PM

Michael Moore should be applauded for having the balls to say what Susan Saradon, Barbara Streisand, Bono, and other so called activist/celebrities failed to. Was it the wrong forum to discuss this? Probably. But Moore's rant was more effective than Chris Cooper and Adrian Brody's PC calls for peace. Our Emperor has no clothes, Moore just pointed out the obvious.

Posted by: artimoff at March 25, 2003 05:53 PM

>>>And trying to drown out something you don't like to hear isn't free speech. It's simply an extension of putting your fingers in your ears and going la la la la la...except you're trying to do it for other people as well.<<<

If booing is trying to drown someone out, what is clapping over a speech? It amounts to the same idea, just in reverse. Positive Vs negative. Moore has every right so say what he wanted, just as the audience has the right to react in a positive or negative manner. I dissagree with everything Moore said except the line about the Dixie Chicks. :)

Posted by: Ibrahim Ng at March 25, 2003 05:54 PM

I am sick of Peter David's website. I am sick of Peter's website being one of the few places where someone points out that you can't use free speech to tell people to shut up.

It must be very convenient for some to label an alternate point of view as being "unpatriotic" and therefore not worthy of consideration or examination. In high school, you do that by calling someone a fag and insisting that they're gay and thus, undeserving of their views being taken seriously. In the real world, it's done by calling someone anti-American. I can't wait to grow up.

Posted by: Jim Chapman at March 25, 2003 06:03 PM

So you think the Oscars is the best place to have an open, lively discussion about US involvement in world affairs?

Posted by: The Blue Spider at March 25, 2003 06:08 PM

"No, I'm saying... that those stations refusing to play the DC's songs in retaliation are showing naked hatred for the concept of free speech..."

Free speech? If and when the DC's songs are played on the radio it isn't an example of free speech. What gets aired on the radio is a personal and business decision and has little do with vast abstract principles.

No, what is going on isn't related to a hatred of free speech but a hatred of the Dixie Chicks. To what end I do not know. Obviously there is and will be a cost for that to someone.

But nothing on the radio is on because of free speech so much as it is because a white-collar decides that something will be good for business.

I mean, you're writing as if there is a general obligation to play country groups' songs on the radio. There isn't.

Posted by: Richard Franklin at March 25, 2003 06:08 PM

I agree with PAD on this one. A lot of people don't want to hear this right now, but our

civil rights are under attack from many fronts right now. There are many American

citizens that fully support the banning of many of our civil rights like free speech. I have

heard many citizens claim we should not have the right to speak out against our

government. There are many groups who believe we should embrace EVERYTHING our

government does unilaterally and to do anything else is unpatriotic and un-American.

People are being labeled traitors, terrorists and Hussein sympathizers for doing nothing

but speaking out against this war. That is not patriotism that is nationalism. We should

always question our government. Our founding fathers wanted us to question and not to

mindlessly obey so lets do so. I love my country and that's why I am so appalled by the

current movement saying we should shut our mouths and obey.

I supported the invasion of Afghanistan because they were harboring international

criminals who attacked us without provocation. I do not support the war in Iraq.

Saddam Hussein is an evil man and I believe he should be ousted from power, but we

should have used all this evidence we claim to have to prove to the world without a

shadow of a doubt that he has been stockpiling weapons of mass destruction. Our

government has been claiming it has irrefutable proof of both that and his connection to

Bin Laden and yet this proof was never supplied to us or the United Nations. I believe

that if we could have supplied this proof then we could have persuaded a majority of the

United Nations to join us in an assault, but our government either wouldn't or couldn't. As

a result I do not trust our government's motives for this invasion. I don't pretend to know

what the true motives are, but our government has managed to convince me through their

own actions that the reasons they have given are not the main motivations. I'm left

wondering who is next? North Korea or Iran seem like the most likely candidates. France

and Russia are starting to look more likely as time goes by.

Now that this war is irrevocable, I hope and pray that it ends swiftly with minimal loss of

life. I hope our troops make it home safely and that it ends there.

Posted by: Roger Tang at March 25, 2003 06:18 PM

A point of order:

A sampling of 1.5% of the 270 million people in American IS pretty damn scientific; in fact, it's vast overkill as any stats person will tell you. You can get a very accurate poll with a sample of 10,000.

Posted by: Roger Tang at March 25, 2003 06:23 PM

Oh, and another thing:

The Awards are given by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts. I assume Michael Moore is a member of the Academy. How illegitimate is it for a member to take a stand at a fuction of a group he's a member of? (It might be improper, but how illegitimate?).

Posted by: Nightwing81060 at March 25, 2003 06:34 PM

I just want to say is I agreement with want Michard Moore said, but I don't fell he should have say it at the Oscar. I do have more respect for him for doing it. I don't support what the Bush Admination did, I will support our troops over there.

Peace

Posted by: Sheila O. at March 25, 2003 06:46 PM

Things have gotten pretty venomous on both sides of the debate, sad to say. It's just a matter of time before somebody starts bringing up the Nazis.

Posted by: Erhan Kartal at March 25, 2003 06:53 PM

Peter David wrote:

"No, I'm saying those who feel that Michael Moore should be shot are showing naked hatred for him personally, that those stations refusing to play the DC's songs in retaliation are showing naked hatred for the concept of free speech, and that those attempting to punish the lead singer of the DC's for stating her opinion by organizing boycotts are just plain idiots."

Well, though of course anyone would agree with your sentiment, no one claimed Michael Moore should be shot in the street, so that's certainly a non sequitur. That radio stations play or don't play Dixie Chicks isn't relevant to the discussion of freedom of speech, because radio stations aren't run by the government. And are you arguing boycotting makes one an idiot, or just when one boycotts for a reason you don't like?

Roger Tang wrote:

"A point of order:

"A sampling of 1.5% of the 270 million people in American IS pretty damn scientific; in fact, it's vast overkill as any stats person will tell you. You can get a very accurate poll with a sample of 10,000."

Being a stats person with a degree in Mathematics, I was rushing to the end of this political discussion to point that out, but you beat me to it. There are a few formulas (when aren't there in Mathematics?) that allow one to gauge how effective one's poll is, and of course polls can be tainted by bias, but numberically, a tiny sample can give incredibly accurate results.

Posted by: Chris Galdieri at March 25, 2003 07:22 PM

I respectfully disagree. Mr. Moore has the right to make a boneheaded, stupid, blunderbuss of a speech and his audience has the right to boo him. I suspect that, if anything, this will only improve his standing among backslapping liberals who think every joke about George Bush's syntax is somehow an act of bravery and keep standing around waiting for the revolution.

I'm all for free speech and expression. But part of that is a vigorous give-and-take; people who disagree with Moore or the Dixie Chicks or whomever have every right not to buy their products, or ask their local radio station or movie theater not to play their work, or organize boycotts. Free speech is there to facilitate dialogue and discussion, and that means people can and will disagree with you or call you an idiot or agree or whatever. The people who do so are in no form whatsoever trying to censor you.

Posted by: Chris Galdieri at March 25, 2003 07:27 PM

And if the Dixie Chicks record sales (which the conglomerates can't control) go up even when their radio airplay (which the conglomerates do control) goes down, what does that say?

It says that their right to free speech is not actually being abridged.

Posted by: Jesse at March 25, 2003 07:28 PM

Peter,

<<“What I'm saying--and I thought this was clear, but obviously it wasn't--is that for many people in this country, freedom of speech is not met with more freedom of speech, as it should be.”>>

Thank you for helping me sort out what I felt is wrong with the current anti-war/pro-war rhetoric. It seemed to me that we have been becoming more polarized in our politics in recent years (the pendulum swings back to 1969), but I could not put my finger on the primary symptom.

The issue of boycotts, etc., goes to the heart of your point. While Rob says, "organizing boycotts, banishing people from playlists, et al, are equally protected rights," they are far from being the same thing. That is like saying that if I do not agree with you that I have the (moral) right to take money out of your wallet. The gangster mentality that says, "You dissed me, so I'm going to hurt you" has worked its way into the mainstream of American society.

An eye for an eye. Let the punishment if the crime. These are concepts that are (or should be) at the heart of our society. We do not escalate conflict and justify it by saying, "They started it." We do not condone excessive force. Yet because we have the legal rights, an increasing number of people believe they have the moral right to jeopardize someone's livelihood because they disagree with something they said. They can rationalize it all they want ("The Dixie Chicks can afford it." "I am only one person.") But we are talking about organized boycotts with no one's hand on the brake. Like you said in a later post, it is no longer about free speech, it is about punishing the speaker.

Finally, to the person who said, "PAD you are not opening a discussion, you made a statement." I have a question. How else do you start a discussion besides making a statement?

Thanks again for your observations, Peter. As Harlan Ellison said (I don't know if he was quoting someone else), "Everyone is entitled to their *well-informed* opinion." While I am too realistic to take this position literally, I appreciate your clarity of language and your refusal to indulge in verbal shorthand. I may not always agree with you, but I can always see that you have done your homework before you say something.

Jesse

Posted by: Jerry Wall at March 25, 2003 07:58 PM

My only question, for everyone saying it is wrong to boycott someone because of their opinion. Do you feel the same when people boycott in response to a right wing issue? How about all the stations refusing to play "Do You Remember?" Or if a company supports pro-life groups, or when groups boycott Rush Limbaugh sponsors. Do you disagree with that as well? If so, I commend you. If not, you're just a hypocrit.

Posted by: Joe Nazzaro at March 25, 2003 08:25 PM

To Raphael: Thanks for the link regarding the T-shirt story. I'd assumed it was common knowledge.

To Rob: There's a big difference between libel and satire. And Cheney's wife is a public figure. Comes with the territory when your arterially-challenged husband and the rest of his cabal of right-wing empire builders are busy playing a game of Risk with real countries.

And to the earlier poster who expressed his dislike for this website, am I correct in assuming that nobody is twisting your arm to be here?

Posted by: Patrick McEvoy at March 25, 2003 08:29 PM

So much to comment on, so little time. I have to add my 2 cents, though, to balance out what I've read that I disagree with... (Free speech - yay!)

First, and most importantly... I am strongly and vocally opposed to this war we started, and that is NOT in ANY WAY an attack on the troops. Several posters have had a hard time with that concept. Why? It makes perfect sense... the TROOPS didn't start the war, they are simply doing their duty to their country. That is admirable. The President and his advisors started the war (for whatever reasons - and they have plenty, I'm just not convinced they were persuasive), so it's THEIR WAR I'm opposed to. Not the troops. How tough is that?

Second, unrelated topic. Unless I was watching a different broadcast than everyone else, Moore was hardly "booed off the stage" as several posters have suggested. The boos and applause seemed maybe equal, with the boos being very loud but from only a few voices. Listen again. Most of the audience seemed to just be listening to the sort of speech that they were expecting from Moore anyway. "Booed off the stage" is a revisionist view of things.

OK, and last - the Academy Awards has often been a forum for making political statements. The last several years people have been playing it safe, but there's a lot of that going around. Anyone here remember Marlon Brando sending Sasheen Littlefeather up to the podium to turn down his award for political reasons? And as I remember, she was applauded! Times sure have changed..

Posted by: Nat Gertler at March 25, 2003 09:11 PM

You know, if the winner of the best song were to go up there and sing for 45 seconds as their acceptance "speech", we'd love it.

Michael Moore is acclaimed because of his ability to present political statements in an attention-getting (if not always accurate) manner. He responded to praise for this by doing just what people praise him for.

The bringing up and invoking the other documentarians was a great stroke, but the statement itself was done in a manner that wouldn't convince anyone of anything. By using some fo the harsh language and by focusing not just on the war, he made a statement that would get cheers from some of his supporters and anger those he disagrees with. That's what he's good at, but I can't see that it helps advance the situation of politics in this nation one whit. It may be profitable to be a left-wing Limbaugh, but it doesn't help matters.

Posted by: Mark Lindsay at March 25, 2003 09:12 PM

Isn't it great that we CAN have this discussion freely? Compare this forum to Iraq.

As far as actors vs consumers, I agree with the earlier comment about consumers using their pocketbooks. John Denver was a good singer. However, at one point he publically stated that drunk drivers were persecuted in this country and weren't as bad as made out to be by MADD. I refused to buy any of his items after that while he was alive. I wasn't about to support that position with my money. The ONLY weapon I have against someone with a microphone is to not financially enable them to use the microphone. Ted Turner publically belittled a CNN employee who just happened to be wearing a cross at a Christmas party (I'm sorry - Holiday party). I'm not going to reward Turner's network by watching it regularly anymore (I know it's not really his anymore, but I quit watching it at the time and have seldom gone back). MSNBC and Fox do pretty well at the job.

PAD, you seem to imply that it's not American to do something like this. Well, I'd happily debate Ted Turner given a chance, but that's not likely. I don't want to silence Turner, but if my not financially contributing to his success gives him a little less influence to so publically spread that view, then I don't see anything un-American about it.

Lastly - a side comment. I'm really annoyed with the rather trite phrase "I support the troops". I mean, come on. Is there any American out there who wants our own troops to fail? to be killed? The troops enforce policy decisions, they don't set them. To say that "I support the troops" is like saying "I love the flag". It's easy to say, but doesn't add a lot to a debate. The debate is the policy, not who's implementing it.

Posted by: Denise Keppel at March 25, 2003 10:03 PM

For the record, I hate the Dixie Chick's music most of the time. I like the direction they are trying to take country, both back to their roots and forward, but I hate the lead singer's voice.

However, I have called my music station daily expressing my outrage for their surpression of the Chick's free speech, and am about to listen to the radio to find out who the sponsers are to write them and let them know why they won't reach me on that station. (Capitalism at work)

As for the war, the most jaded part of me is wondering if we use Civil Right abuses as a justification, why aren't we attacking China next?

Posted by: Scott Iskow at March 25, 2003 10:15 PM

It's not wrong to boycott someone because of their opinions. I boycott Todd McFarlane and Kevin Smith because they've been mean to PAD. It was a decision I made on my own. (I'm fairly certain that PAD has never encouraged his fans to stop reading the titles of these people. He's got too much integrity for that.) This has nothing to do with the quality of their work. I was enjoying Spawn before I decided to drop it.

I boycott reality TV shows, because I disagree with them on a moral/ethical level. I find them uncreative and back-stabby and not representative of what I have come to know as "reality." Not my cup of cola.

Did anyone even see Chicago? Who do you think made it possible for two murderers to become celebrities? It was the audience. The audience ate the crap that the media fed them, and they enjoyed the crap. It's not the media's fault for feeding us the crap--it's our fault for eating it. The media was only feeding the audience crap because they knew the audience would take it. But what they don't understand is that the audience needs more nutritious meals too. Keep feeding us junk food and we'll *become* junk food. We need to take responsibility for our entertainment.

So, yes, if there is an honest disagreement with the minds behind entertainment, then I believe it's okay to boycott. But this whole thing with the war is not so cut-and-dry. A lot of people honestly believe that Bush has failed us in some way, and we can't condemn these people for their beliefs just because we're trying to put on a patriotic show for the rest of the world. When people have opinions, they should feel free to voice them without violent protestations.

This is America.

Remember?

Posted by: Kam Bailey at March 25, 2003 10:16 PM

Personally, I don't think anyone's ravings count. The loudest people for or against the war are speaking by their personal opinions, whether influenced by their upbringing, religious beliefs, or what have you. And opinions are like assholes.

That being said, here's mine: God forbid someone other than George W. Bush humiliate George W. Bush before the world.

And, in my opinion, no conservative had any problem not showing support for the last morally bankrupt president, so this brouhaha over not challenging the president or his policies seems heavy-handed and arrogant. If people couldn't bitch, we'd live in a totalitarian state.

Posted by: SlashKaBob at March 25, 2003 10:23 PM

Still makes me smile that Michael Moore is given a standing ovation and a chorus of boos within 2 minutes for doing the SAME THING - being Michael Moore and making folks uncomfortable with his opinions. Don't worry about free speech NOW, worry about it when we are victorious in Iraq and then start to contemplate what else "needs to be done to win the war on terrorism".

Posted by: Kam Bailey at March 25, 2003 10:37 PM

Now THAT was un-American.

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

-Benjamin Franklin, 1759

Posted by: Robert Sparling at March 25, 2003 10:43 PM

Well, this is all nice.

I didn't watch the Oscars because award shows are boring and the guy you want to win almost never does (someday Jay and Silent Bob, someday).

I'm just guessing here, but maybe Peter's just upset that Moore faces social condemnation for his views. It really has been stressed recently that if you speak out against the government, the war (Operation Iraqi Freedom, suuuuure, just look at all those refugees pour into the refugee camps, they really wanted to be free), or Bush, that you are being anti-American or anti-soldier. I think that is what PAD is a little upset about.

And whoever said that you shouldn't do something (like speak out against your government), even if it is legal, is retarded.

Anyway, could we go back to talking about comics and TV and other stuff that is less infuriating than a war and a government we have no control over? I like talking about comic books and Buffy and Angel. They're infinitly more fun.

PS: I'm hoping no one will care enough to respond to this, but if you feel the need, bugger you.

Posted by: ryard at March 25, 2003 10:45 PM

Scavenger said:

It's worth pointing out (again) that Moore's speech was word for word the same as the one he gave Saturday at the Independent Spirit Awards.

I may be waaaaay off about this, so I'll preface this by saying that "I read somewhere..." so if someone can confirm this, or disprove it, please do!

But, I read somewhere that he also made an anti-Academy crack as part of his (otherwise) identical speech at the Independent Spirit Awards...does anyone know what he said?

Posted by: Kam Bailey at March 25, 2003 10:47 PM

One last thing.

Our troops aren't defending our "responsiblity" to shut up and let our elected or appointed officals miterate wherever they want. They're defending our RIGHTS. If one is not defending those rights, the least they can do is use them. And that goes for people against anti-war people, too.

The notion that unpopular opinions should be silenced is the notion of a fascist. It's notions like that which could destroy the country.

Posted by: ryard at March 25, 2003 11:00 PM

I guess there's one thing I have to say about this.

If the government was cracking down on what people were saying...if the government led a boycott on Michael Moore...if the government decreed that radio stations can not play the Dixie Chicks...then there'd be a problem. But it's not. It's the common man at the base, really.

The stars know it. That's why they looked like statues when the cameras swung on them. Their agents told them to sit on their hands if something like this happened. Do you think they fear a government blacklist? No, they (and I know "they" is far too general, but I think I'm safe in assuming that the vast majority of stars the camera looked at agreed with Moore)know that if they applauded, they would upset people and might lose money. Because that's capitalism, and that's America.

I just don't remember this huge outcry when, for example, GLAAD decided to get Dr. Laura's show off the air.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 25, 2003 11:10 PM

Stephen Robinson: Michael Moore publically insulted the president of the United States at war time and then took his Oscar, rode home in a limo, and kicked back in his mansion.

Luigi Novi: Moore lives on Manhattan's Upper West Side. Not a lot of mansions there, I think.

Posted by: Kam Bailey at March 25, 2003 11:21 PM

The million plus value of his home was widely publicized on Hannity and Colmes a while back. Why does being rich make you weird for being a democrat, or, for that matter, being poor or a member of a minority make you weird for being a republican?

Posted by: Peter David at March 25, 2003 11:22 PM

Handling several questions at once:

>>My only question, for everyone saying it is wrong to boycott someone because of their opinion. Do you feel the same when people boycott in response to a right wing issue?<<

Well, I don't boycott Domino's Pizza, if that's what you mean. I'm just not a big believer in punishing someone financially because I differ with their opinions. Frankly, I don't comprehend why anyone would.

>>I boycott Todd McFarlane and Kevin Smith because they've been mean to PAD. It was a decision I made on my own.<<

Really? I don't. I mean, I'm flattered that you feel so strongly on my behalf. But I buy McFarlane toys when it's something I think is cool, and I see Kevin Smith movies. Their opinons and how they treat me are of no consequence to me when it comes to supporting the projects they make if those projects are of interest. I just don't have that kind of mental filter that inclines me to walk away from a project I'd otherwise patronize simply because of the attitudes of the creators.

>>I just don't remember this huge outcry when, for example, GLAAD decided to get Dr. Laura's show off the air.<<

If I'd had this forum then, I'd have condemned their actions.

PAD

Posted by: The Blue Spider at March 25, 2003 11:25 PM

"The bringing up and invoking the other documentarians was a great stroke"

I only bring this up to note that the use of the word "other" is in this case inaccurate. That would imply that Michael Moore is one of those that he invited up there. The statement should be that he invited the documentarians. He is not a documentarian because he does not do documentaries.

The basic definition of documentary, put forth by the very freaking Academy, is that it be a work of nonfiction. Moore did not do a work of nonfiction.

He's also a liar and immensely irresponsible despite what his interview said (which is on the Oscar.com website).

Posted by: The Blue Spider at March 25, 2003 11:25 PM

"The bringing up and invoking the other documentarians was a great stroke"

I only bring this up to note that the use of the word "other" is in this case inaccurate. That would imply that Michael Moore is one of those that he invited up there. The statement should be that he invited the documentarians. He is not a documentarian because he does not do documentaries.

The basic definition of documentary, put forth by the very freaking Academy, is that it be a work of nonfiction. Moore did not do a work of nonfiction.

He's also a liar and immensely irresponsible despite what his interview said (which is on the Oscar.com website).

Posted by: Richard Franklin at March 25, 2003 11:50 PM

"The basic definition of documentary, put forth by the very freaking Academy, is that it be a work of nonfiction. Moore did not do a work of nonfiction.

He's also a liar and immensely irresponsible despite what his interview said (which is on the Oscar.com website)."

Michael Moore may present a slanted opinion in his documentaries, but I can't think of too many unbiased documentaries. Most documentaries are made with the intent of showing a particular point of view.

I'm curious. Where did Michael Moore out and out lie in Bowling For Columbine? Please supply source material for your argument.

My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.

Adlai E. Stevenson Jr. (1900 - 1965), Speech in Detroit, 7 Oct. 1952

Posted by: T Campbell at March 26, 2003 12:22 AM

I'm with Peter all the way on the Dixie Chicks. And Adrien Brody. There were other anti-war mentions which also drew cheers. I had no problems with any of those.

What Michael Moore's scene said to me was that if you act like an ass, you'll get treated like one. The Oscars may often be called boring, but to the Hollywood in-crowd, they have the force of ritual. Rituals have rules. Break those rules at your own risk. It's not wrong for me to express my doubts about God, but if I shout them in the middle of my friends' confirmation, I'd better be ready to accept the consequences.

(For what it's worth, I think Moore recognized that he was breaking the rules, and that he felt the negative consequences would be worth it. Call it social disobedience.)

Now what struck me as truly cowardly was the loss of the red-carpet walk. I thought that was an obvious attempt to keep the stars from speaking directly to the cameras outside the formal ceremony. I bet several of them have interesting things they wished they could have said...

Posted by: Cameron at March 26, 2003 01:19 AM

Peter, I happen to disagree. The fact that Moore's speech was not that well received is beside the point, the fact that he chose to say that stuff on national television is. As my grandmother taught me, "there is a time and a place for everything", and forgive me for saying this, but the damn Oscars is not the right place to say things like that.

Further more, the fact that he was booed off the stage, and ridiculed by the news and the general public, in outlined under freedom of speech. The people that booed him off the

stage are simply expressing their opinions, much the same way that he expressed his.

Finally the fact of the matter that people are boycotting the Dixie Chicks music, is in the part of our laws that says that people have the right to peacefully protest whatever they feel unjust, to the point that it interferes with other peoples' rights, and I hardly call that "naked hatred of the concept of Free Speech"(as you put it). By the way their comments that caused their little problem all gets back to, "there is a time and a place for

everything".

Posted by: Dan at March 26, 2003 01:26 AM

Given Mike Moore's comments about working with Canadians. I'm currious to know what US citizens think about Canada siting out of this war. I personally appreciate the fact that the government of Canada stands on the side of international consensus and diplomacy. They stand in good company, with France, Germany and even the Pope. And after all this is the process that brought us the Geneva Convention - the very convention Bush is presently appealing to for the sake of American POW's. Forget about citicism of a government carrying stiff penalties - watch what happens in Canada - just for not agreeing with anouther goverment (I really can't call what they are saying now criticism of the US). Bush visits in May - set your VCR's. Thanks for listening to my rant - Your Thoughts...

Posted by: The Blue Spider at March 26, 2003 02:29 AM

"I'm curious. Where did Michael Moore out and out lie in Bowling For Columbine? Please supply source material for your argument."

Mispresentation of times and dates and even purposes of events is not called truth. It is lying.

Source material for my argument? I've been doing that for the past two days! Try looking here: http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

"Bowling for Columbine contains a sequence filmed at the Lockheed-Martin manufacturing facility, near Columbine. Moore interviews a PR fellow, shows missiles being built, and then asks whether knowledge that weapons of mass destruction were being built nearby might have motivated the Columbine shooters in committing their own mass slaying. After all, if their father worked on the missiles, 'What's the difference between that mass destruction and the mass destruction over at Columbine High School?' Moore intones that the missiles with their 'Pentagon payloads' are trucked through the town 'in the middle of the night while the children are asleep.'

"Soon after Bowling was released someone checked out the claim, and found that the Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes rockets for launching satellites."

Micheal Moore lied. Micheal Moore spouted fiction. Therefore it's not a documentary because this isn't nonfiction. Well, that's no longer the point, is it? It's about lying. Okay.

"Bowling continues its theme by juxtaposing another Heston speech with a school shooting at Mt. Morris, MI, just north of Flint, making the claim that right after the shooting, NRA came to the locale to stage a defiant rally. In Moore's words, 'Just as he did after the Columbine shooting, Charlton Heston showed up in Flint, to have a big pro-gun rally.'"

Moore was telling lies.

"Fact: Heston's speech was given at a 'get out the vote' rally in Flint, which rally was held when elections rolled around some eight months after the shooting.

"Fact: Moore should remember. On the same day, Moore himself was hosting a similar rally in Flint, for the Green Party."

Want more? "Bowling depicts the juvenile shooter as a sympathetic youngster who just found a gun in his uncle's house and took it to school. 'No one knew why the little boy wanted to shoot the little girl.'

"Fact: The little boy was the class bully, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife."

"Fact: The uncle's house was the neighborhood crack-house. The uncle (together with the shooter's father, then serving a prison term for theft and cocaine possession, and his aunt and maternal grandmother) earned their living off drug dealing. The gun was stolen by one of the uncle's customers and purchased by him in exchange for drugs."

That is dishonest. That is outright right.

From http://www.opinionjournal.com/forms/printThis.html?id=110003233

"In print, too, Mr. Moore plays fast and loose with the facts. In his 'Stupid White Men,' his best-selling book, he blithely states that five-sixths of the U.S. defense budget in 2001 went toward the construction of a single type of plane and that two-thirds of the $190 million that President Bush raised in his 2000 campaign came from just over 700 individuals, a preposterous assertion given that the limit for individual contributions at the time was $1,000.

"When CNN's Lou Dobbs asked Mr. Moore about his inaccuracies, he shrugged off the quesiton. 'You know, look, this is a book of political humor. So, I mean, I don't respond to that sort of stuff, you know,' he said.

"'Glaring inaccuracies?' Mr. Dobbs said.

"'No, I don't. Why should I? How can there be inaccuracy in comedy?'"

Those words seem contrary to what he told reporters after he won his Academy Award: http://mfile.akamai.com/8629/asf/clips.download.akamai.com/8629/DocumentaryFeature2_100k.asx

Between minutes 9 and 11 Moore declares his latest book a work of nonfiction, which isn't what he said before on freaking CNN. He talks of his responsibility when earlier he denied responsibility.

Can you prove to me that this man consistently tells the truth? Or does every fact need to be checked?

Posted by: Dennis V. at March 26, 2003 02:58 AM

PAD wrote:

>The only thing new about a

>politically-oriented speech being

>given on the Oscars is the degree

>of hostility with which such

>endeavors are met in this

>country.

You seem to be ignoring the right of people to voice their opinions against the crap that Michael Moore was spewing. Moore got his chance (although I don't think the venue was appropriate) to say what he wanted so why can't people, who disagree with him, get their chance to voice their opinion? It seems the right to free speech only applies to liberals and those who have other opinions get attacked.

Posted by: rogerburks at March 26, 2003 03:10 AM

I'm not annoyed by whether a Liberal or Conservative has something to say. Really, I think you (PAD) object to as much Conservative speech as anybody else objects to Liberal speech. Yes, I see both sides as hypocrites. Earlier today I turned off Fox News when Bill O'Reilly said he wasn't biased, for example. What annoys me is the lack of intelligence characterizing political speech in this country, on both sides. It always degrades into an annoying trading of insults. The worst on the Internet is when somebody takes an honest expression of opinion and picks it apart line-by-line (typically using a number of logical flaws to degrade the post) in order to show that their mindset makes them superior to those that they disagree with. Any response is met with rude attacks on the person. Both Liberals and Conservatives do this, and they are BOTH annoying. I suppose they have the right to do that too, but that doesn't make me like it.

Posted by: Dennis V. at March 26, 2003 03:23 AM

PAD wrote:

>Booing is not the same. Booing is

>the utilizing of the "Heckler's

>Veto." The attempt not to meet

>free speech with free speech, but

>instead the endeavor to stop the

>other person from speaking

>entirely.

So, if one disagrees then they must remain quiet? But I guess the cheering is okay (especially since they mirror your own thoughts on the subject matter).

Posted by: Michael Bregman at March 26, 2003 05:29 AM

Give me a break PAD. It's OK for Moore to criticize Bush, but it's not OK to criticize Moore? According to what logic? What hostility are you talking about? Moore's speech was violent and rude in an evening that was about entertainment and glitz. He was as hostile as they come. From the people who attacked him back, none came off as rude and hostile as he did.

And note that nobody took that man's freedom of speech. He said what he wanted to, it got reprinted in all the papers... So how exactly was he silenced? Or are you perhaps requesting that anti-war/anti-Bush people will get the right to express their opinions without anyone challenging them?

I'm disappointed, Peter. I really am.

Posted by: Michael Bregman at March 26, 2003 05:45 AM

Ibrahim, freedom of speech does include the right to tell someone to shut up, as long as that's all you do. And as part as freedom of speech you can tell someone that he shouldn't say stuff like that. You see? It's quite nice.

And I love it how there were no right wing celebrities speaking out at the Oscars. Don't delude yourself that they don't exist. It's just that there's a definite Mccarthism in the entertainment idustry. It's trendy to say left wing stuff in Hollywood, but just try to be different...

PAD, do you really think that a guy saying "Go Bush! Let's go get the bad guys!" wouldn't have been booed by some of the people in the crowd, or is booing a rightist tendency?

Posted by: Michael Bregman at March 26, 2003 05:49 AM

And my two cents on boycotting: For me it's a personal thing. I disagree with you on a lot of things, but I still buy your comics because they're fun and I know that you're a good guy with good intentions.

When it comes to people like Moore, he's so obnoxious I can't even look at him, so that's one factor to stay away. When the manner and the extremity of which some people deliver their views simply makes it impossible for me to enjoy anything they do without thinking about their political aspects.

Organizing boycotts is silly, and usually pointless. But at this times of war, I can see how some people may misdirect their energies in frustration.

Nobody boycotted recently has went bankrupt yet, last time I checked.

Posted by: Zeitenflug at March 26, 2003 06:24 AM

Hi Peter,

I totally agree with you and I thank you for talking about that even though there are lots of comments critizing it. My problem with the whole issue is, my parents travelled a lot and so did I. I lived not only in the US, but also in UK, in Germany and for a short time in France. I can read and watch news in German and in French, too - and from all countries I'm most impressed with the journalism on one particular German station called ZDF. They don't take sides in the war, but they very critically report what they can learn from Arab as well as American stations and international journalists partially embedded in the Army. It's most interesting to compare that US and UK are the only big countries supporting the war, whereas many other countries world-wide say, the attack of US against Iraq is a breach of the UN charta article 4 (saying, you're only allowed to attack another country if it either attacked you first or if you have prove it is preparing an attack against you). It is against international law to attack Iraq to force it to disarm. You can critize it - and many people do, saying how else could you disarm Iraq when not using force? But fact is, it's a breach of international law - and the problem lots of international media address is, how countries can act united in the future, when the US insists on having the right to wage war even outside the UN charta.

Another problem often addressed in international media is, that our friends and relatives who're down there fighting aren't facing a hostile army, but women, children and innocent men, that just try to do what they think would be best for their country - you have to bear in mind, they were under foreign rule just as Americans were up to 1776. They don't want to let that happen again, even though they don't like Saddam, they love their country.

Many countries (Russia, Germany, France, Japan and so on, about 250 countries are opposing the US attack of Iraq) say, it would be better to avoid war and to apply other means. After all, when the Iraqian people are dead, it's hard to free them.

I don't want to hurt anybody's feeling. I have great respect for everybody who, sometimes against better judgement, went down to Iraq to serve our government. But after all we're living in a democracy, and thus, we have the right to say we're against war - the freedom to do that is the freedom our fathers fought for and it is the reason why the United States are the oldest democracy in the world and our soldiers can be proud to fight for it.

cu,

Tom.

Posted by: Zeitenflug at March 26, 2003 06:24 AM

Hi Peter,

I totally agree with you and I thank you for talking about that even though there are lots of comments critizing it. My problem with the whole issue is, my parents travelled a lot and so did I. I lived not only in the US, but also in UK, in Germany and for a short time in France. I can read and watch news in German and in French, too - and from all countries I'm most impressed with the journalism on one particular German station called ZDF. They don't take sides in the war, but they very critically report what they can learn from Arab as well as American stations and international journalists partially embedded in the Army. It's most interesting to compare that US and UK are the only big countries supporting the war, whereas many other countries world-wide say, the attack of US against Iraq is a breach of the UN charta article 4 (saying, you're only allowed to attack another country if it either attacked you first or if you have prove it is preparing an attack against you). It is against international law to attack Iraq to force it to disarm. You can critize it - and many people do, saying how else could you disarm Iraq when not using force? But fact is, it's a breach of international law - and the problem lots of international media address is, how countries can act united in the future, when the US insists on having the right to wage war even outside the UN charta.

Another problem often addressed in international media is, that our friends and relatives who're down there fighting aren't facing a hostile army, but women, children and innocent men, that just try to do what they think would be best for their country - you have to bear in mind, they were under foreign rule just as Americans were up to 1776. They don't want to let that happen again, even though they don't like Saddam, they love their country.

Many countries (Russia, Germany, France, Japan and so on, about 250 countries are opposing the US attack of Iraq) say, it would be better to avoid war and to apply other means. After all, when the Iraqian people are dead, it's hard to free them.

I don't want to hurt anybody's feeling. I have great respect for everybody who, sometimes against better judgement, went down to Iraq to serve our government. But after all we're living in a democracy, and thus, we have the right to say we're against war - the freedom to do that is the freedom our fathers fought for and it is the reason why the United States are the oldest democracy in the world and our soldiers can be proud to fight for it.

cu,

Tom.

Posted by: Avi Green at March 26, 2003 06:43 AM

I can't say I've ever watched any of Michael Moore's documentaries, but now, after how blatantly he spoke on Oscar night, I think I'll be avoiding him altogether, just like Vanessa Redgrave. He didn't have to talk like that, and I don't think anybody was forcing him to either, and he KNOWS that he didn't have to talk like that.

Posted by: Gordon at March 26, 2003 06:48 AM

First, you don't have to be a member of the Academy to get nominated or win an Oscar. You'll probably get invited if you win. So don't assume Moore is attacking his own academy--we'd need more facts on that!

I have a theory on the conservative bashing of celebs/ Hollywood. The conservatives have taken political power and dominate that forum. they've taken over radio. The news media has been totally cowed--between corporation ownership in fewer hands (some quite right wing like Murdoch), the reporters who drool at the chance to wear khaki and the White House press corps who fear being cut off from all access by Ari Fleisher, you rarely get any hard questions on any other subject anymore! With all those fields controlled by the neo-conservatives, the only people who still have access to the press are celebs. And since the right has little control over what celebs say, they belittle them, marginalize them, insult them (the NY POST is famous for rude fat comments about Garalfolo, Baldwin and Bill) and, if all that doesn't work, they organize boycotts through newsletters and radio shows. The new right is all about controlling the message, and if you're not part of the message, you better shut up or face their wrath!

Of course the new US policy is filled with bullying tactics. Look how the new right handles any dissent!

Posted by: Michael Bregman at March 26, 2003 06:58 AM

Gordon,paranoid much? Are the evil rightists are out to get you and silence you forever? Poor Moore who got an Oscar and his speech reprinted all over the world should get sympathy exactly why?

There are rightist elements in a media that is mostly leftist. Live with it.

Posted by: MB at March 26, 2003 07:10 AM

From Moore's website.

"Support the Dixie Chicks: call country music radio stations and keep requesting their songs"

So if it's immoral to boycott someone for their political views, is it then immoral to support them because of that?... How is that different?

On the same logic, why people can cheer Moore, but not boo him? Both are ways to express your opinion about what he says.

Posted by: The StarWolf at March 26, 2003 09:14 AM

"If and when the DC's songs are played on the radio it isn't an example of free speech. What gets aired on the radio is a personal and business decision and has little do with vast abstract principles."

On the contrary. It can indeed be about free speech. "What they said is not politically correct and we don't want to be seen supporting that, so we'll stop giving them air time." Sorry, but when you're in the entertainment industry and have spent years honing talent and practicing your shtick, seeing someone get yanked off the air for saying something is one very powerful incentive for you to shut up. Can you say "indirect coercion"?

Also, many of the people criticising the comment the DC lead made make a common mistake. They confuse the office of the Presidency which should get respect, with the person who occupies it, who needs to earn it. Or does anyone think Nixon was worthy of respect?

"Lockheed-Martin plant does not build weapons-type missiles; it makes rockets for launching satellites."

Hey, Billy-Joe-Bob, take out that comsat and put in a 20megaton warhead instead would you? Thanks.

Remember that the missiles used to launch the early space capsules and satellites were actually ICBMs used for another task? That the Titan missiles which put satellites up now can just as easily deliver a nuclear payload to downtown Beijing?

"Fact: The little boy was the class bully, already suspended from school for stabbing another kid with a pencil. Since the incident, he has stabbed another child with a knife."

We must have seen a different film. What I came away with was not that the kid was a little angel, but that he had been forced to live away from his mother by a screwed-up system and that this is what contributed to the tragedy. A tragedy which probably would not have occured if he had not been forced to stay at his uncle's.

Posted by: Corey Tacker at March 26, 2003 09:31 AM

PAD wrote:

"Well, I don't boycott Domino's Pizza, if that's what you mean. I'm just not a big believer in punishing someone financially because I differ with their opinions. Frankly, I don't comprehend why anyone would."

Okay, then... what about your "personal boycott" (your words, from BID) of Fantagraphics because you didn't like things Gary Groth said while he was exercising his free speech?

Corey

Posted by: Peter David at March 26, 2003 09:57 AM

>>You seem to be ignoring the right of people to voice their opinions against the crap that Michael Moore was spewing. Moore got his chance (although I don't think the venue was appropriate) to say what he wanted so why can't people, who disagree with him, get their chance to voice their opinion?<<

Where did I say they can't? Go back and check. I never said that. I said "Boooo" is not an opinion. It's a loud noise designed to stop someone from talking. But I never said people should not be allowed to voice opinions.

>>It seems the right to free speech only applies to liberals and those who have other opinions get attacked.<<

Considering that statement bears no resemblance to anything I've said, I'm glad you have the qualifier of "It seems" in there.

PAD

Posted by: Stephen Robinson at March 26, 2003 10:00 AM

PAD said:

>>I just don't remember this huge outcry when, for example, GLAAD decided to get Dr. Laura's show off the air.<<

If I'd had this forum then, I'd have condemned their actions. >>

Yes, I had a feeling that was the case. I'm pleased that you're one of the few free-speech absolutists out there.

It also always disappoints me when people who should stand for freedom of expression seek to stifle that same freedom of expression when they dislike the views. There's a current organized boycott of talk radio and of Michael Savage (who is reportedly homophobic).

If your only answer to someone's views is to silence them, then you're conceding defeat. I mean, I think I can out debate the Dixie Chicks, for Pete's sake. I don't need to bother with a boycott.

Posted by: Peter David at March 26, 2003 10:11 AM

PAD wrote:

"Well, I don't boycott Domino's Pizza, if that's what you mean. I'm just not a big believer in punishing someone financially because I differ with their opinions. Frankly, I don't comprehend why anyone would."

Okay, then... what about your "personal boycott" (your words, from BID) of Fantagraphics because you didn't like things Gary Groth said while he was exercising his free speech?<<

You can't exactly compare boycotting the Dixie Chicks because they're anti-war and my ceasing support of a magazine that slammed me as an individual so regularly that Groth once referred to me as "one of (their) favorite whipping boys." The Carol Kalish slam was simply the final straw. On the other hand, even when I was at my angriest, I never endeavored to organize anything. I just said, "That's all I can stands 'cause I can't stands no more."

There was no other Fantagraphics material I was purchasing anyway. If I was a regular purchaser of "Love and Rockets," no matter how angry I was at Groth, I doubt I would have ceased supporting it. How do I know? Because I've purchased other FBI material, such as "Ghost World" or their collections of "Li'l Abner." Plus my older daughters' tastes run along Fantagraphics material, and I've bought that for them.

Still don't buy Comics Journal, though. Hey, maybe they need regime change...

PAD

Posted by: Corey Tacker at March 26, 2003 10:15 AM

All right, then. I see you aren't totally boycotting Fantagraphics. Fair enough.

Corey

Posted by: Peter David at March 26, 2003 10:16 AM

>>Give me a break PAD. It's OK for Moore to criticize Bush, but it's not OK to criticize Moore? According to what logic?<<

Certainly not according to mine, and I really, REALLY wish people would stop reinterpreting what I was saying so they could attack the reinterpretations.

Again: Booing is not expressing an opinion. Booing is an attempt to silence. Cheering is not an attempt to silence

Let me put it to you this way: If Steve Martin had come out and, instead of making a joke, had said instead, "I just want to say, I support the President and I think Michael Moore is an asshole for saying what he did," I'd have zero problem with that.

Now: I've said repeatedly I support people's rights to criticize both liberal and conservative opinions. If you folks want to continue to pretend I didn't say that, go right ahead. But, frankly, it's getting kind of pathetic.

PAD

Posted by: The Blue Spider at March 26, 2003 10:37 AM

And I'd like to point out to Star Wolf than a commercial radio station has no obligation to free speech since they're paying for the songs anyway. There is nothing free about the speech or songs you hear in a commercial radio station.

And I'd like to point out that there's a difference between a weapons delivery system and a weapon of masss destruction. That said, it's only a weapons delivery system if it is built to deliver weapons, like warheads, to targets. If it launches satellites into the air, then that's what it does regardless of tangentital theories about what it could be used for.

Posted by: Mike M. at March 26, 2003 10:38 AM

I feel about the same way PAD's article said (not the reintepretations, though).

I believe in freedom of speech. As a naive young journalist, I still believe that you should be able to say what you want without being retalliated against.

Thousands of radio stations banning the Dixie Chicks for comments about the President? Someone on this very board saying "Michael Moore should be shot!"

This is ridiculous. Did we all get uprooted to Amerika?

I know it's not popular to disagree with Governor Bush right now, but I am against this war, plain and simple. I am not anti-soldier (one of the people I respect most in the world was sent over there, and not a day goes by that I don't wish for his safe return), and I am not anti-American's safety.

Anyone who truly believes this war wasn't a smoke screen to turn the attention away from our inability to get justice for 9-11 is deluding themselves.

Posted by: Jeff at March 26, 2003 10:49 AM

From PAD:

>>Again: Booing is not expressing an opinion. Booing is an attempt to silence. Cheering is not an attempt to silence<<

Gotta disagree here. Cheering is a display of affection and/or agreement. Booing is a display of contempt (for lack of a better word) or disagreement. If someone's going to stand up in public and express their opinion, they should be ready for either display.

Posted by: Michael Bregman at March 26, 2003 10:49 AM

PAD, my point is very simple. People were cheering Moore, creating the feeling that he had everyone with him, especially since he had the gall to say "we" a lot. So in that case I think booing was an apropriate way for some to point out that they didn't like what he said. He was hardly silenced. His speech was broadcasted clearly and got reprinted all over the world.

You're welcome to make yourself clearer on this issue. What are those "stiff penalties" you're talking about in your last paragraph, which in my view is a textbook definition of "hyperbole"?

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 26, 2003 10:53 AM

EClark1849: How you can be against the war, but FOR the people that fight it? Ultimately, do you know how stupid that really sounds?

Luigi Novi: It only sounds “stupid” to you, perhaps because you’re ignoring who’s in charge of the war. The war is decided by politicians. It isn’t decided by my buddy who joined the reserves. If I have a friend, and he joins the military, say, under Clinton, and then Bush becomes Prez and has us go to war, does that mean I’m somehow against my friend? No. Because soldiers don’t make war decisions, our government does. The soldiers are just guys doing a job. When you join the military, you don’t know if you’re going to be going to war, and if you are, whether the war is going to be a popular one or an unpopular one, a just one or an unjust one. You can’t go to the recruitment office and say, “I’m joining the Marines, but I get to pick which wars I go to fight in.” It doesn’t work that way. Laying responsibility for the war on the individual members of the military, who are our sons, fathers, sisters, daughters, aunts, uncles, cousins, etc., is demonstrative of a flimsy intellect.

Let’s say there’s a war that the entire country is behind, like say WWII. A youngster inspired by the courage of those who fought decides to join the military when he’s old enough. But then the country goes to war again, this time in a very unpopular war, like say Vietnam. Is it the soldier’s fault that he war he was ordered to fight it isn’t a popular one, or even one that he himself might not have wanted as a citizen? No. He has to follow orders. He likely joined the military for perfectly honorable reasons, but can’t decide not to fight because he doesn’t think the war is just.

For that reason, I can be against the war, but that doesn’t mean I point the finger at soldiers. I should point it at the president. Even if I were against the war, I’d want the soldiers to be safe and to return home safe. I wouldn’t be trying to sabotage them like that one scumbag American who attacked a barracks, or the fucksticks who hold up the sign seen here: http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/03/Fragging.shtml

EClark1849: It's like protesting sports but being FOR the people that play them. Against art, but FOR the people that create it. Or protesting books, but being FOR the people that write or publish them.

Luigi Novi: Artists are responsible for their art. Writers for their writing. Soldiers aren’t responsible for whether a war is declared, or for deciding how it’s prosecuted.

Julio Diaz: I'm not pretending that Moore doesn't do well financially -- surely better than I -- but I doubt he's considered wealthy. Maybe lower upper class.

Luigi Novi: His home is valued at $1.9 million.

Peter David: Booing is not the same. Booing is the utilizing of the "Heckler's Veto." The attempt not to meet free speech with free speech, but instead the endeavor to stop the other person from speaking entirely.

Luigi Novi: So what should those who thought his rant was distasteful have done? Stand up and say, “Michael, I disagree with you because…”? To echo Jeremy Schwartz, you can’t exactly have a coherent, articulate debate between someone standing at a podium and people seated in the audience, particularly when the guy at the podium only has a minute or two to talk anyway. Moore was being an idiot, and those in the audience who thought so let him know it.

Bill Ritter: I cringed during the second half of Brody's speech.

Luigi Novi: I think Halle Berry’s husband might’ve cringed before he even started the first half.

Personally, I thought Adrien Brody’s speech—particularly the second half—was the nicest and most poignant of the evening. Given the movie he made, I think it might almost have seemed odd not to comment on it, because unlike Moore, Brody actually made his comments about peace and war pertinent to the movie for which he won.

Roger Tang: The Awards are given by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts. I assume Michael Moore is a member of the Academy.

Luigi Novi: Why? Not all actors and directors are members. Membership in the Academy is by invitation of the Board of Governors and is limited to those who have achieved distinction in the arts and sciences of motion pictures. Some of the criteria for admittance are: film credits of a caliber which reflect the high standards of the Academy, receipt of an Academy Award nomination, achievement of unique distinction, earning of special merit, or making of an outstanding contribution to film. It is unlikely that Moore, having only been nominated for the first time with Bowling for Columbine, is one of the Academy’s 6,000 members.

ryard: I just don't remember this huge outcry when, for example, GLAAD decided to get Dr. Laura's show off the air.

Luigi Novi: I seem to recall more than one person publicly opining that it was censorship.

Peter David: I'm just not a big believer in punishing someone financially because I differ with their opinions. Frankly, I don't comprehend why anyone would.

Luigi Novi: But what constitutes “punishment,” and what constitutes simply making a personal decision not to patronize someone’s works if you don’t like them, even if it has the effect of lessening the success of those works? I mean, if I was thinking of buying the new Dixie Chicks CD, but then decide not too because I was so offended by what Natalie Maines said, or if I own or manage a radio station and stop playing their songs, don’t I simply have the right to do so? Must it be seen as “punishing” someone? It’s not like anyone has an “entitlement” to be a rich and famous artist, or anything.

Richard Franklin: I'm curious. Where did Michael Moore out and out lie in Bowling For Columbine? Please supply source material for your argument.

Luigi Novi: Haven’t you been reading this board? Jim posted this link yesterday that details a lot of Moore’s lies and distortions, which reference provided: http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003233

Michael Bregman: Moore's speech was violent and rude in an evening that was about entertainment and glitz.

Luigi Novi: It was arguably rude. It was not “violent.”

Posted by: Michael Bregman at March 26, 2003 10:56 AM

Luigi, I obviously wasn't talking about physical violence.

BTW, how many Mario Bros jokes do you get a day? :)

Posted by: Michael Bregman at March 26, 2003 11:02 AM

I gotta agree with Jeff about the booing. Also, there are different types of boos. Those that are meant to silence and those that voice diasgreeement, disgust and so on. As Jeff said: how else could the "boo people" voice their opinion to counter the "cheer people"?

Posted by: Robert at March 26, 2003 11:10 AM

>>As a naive young journalist, I still believe that you should be able to say what you want without being retalliated against.

Tell that to Trent Lott.

We have the right to say what we want without fear of government retribution. Saying our speech should have no consequences is not reasonable. I attended a Bonnie Raitt concert in 1992, and she was so political on so many occasions that I doubt I will go to a concert of hers again. It doesn't mean I don't like her music, just that I have a bad taste in my mouth because of the concert.

Having said that, I think organized boycotts of the Dixie Chicks are pretty over the top.

Posted by: Bill Roper at March 26, 2003 11:14 AM

There are times and places when booing is inappropriate. There are times and places when it's just fine. And the *effect* of the booing is an important part of figuring out whether it's appropriate or not.

If booing is constant and loud enough to prevent the speaker's message from being delivered, then it falls into the "heckler's veto" category that PAD mentioned and would be inappropriate. If it's the counterpart to polite applause and *doesn't* prevent the speaker from continuing, then it's *not* appropriate.

Not having actually watched the Oscars, I can't say which was the case with Moore.

Posted by: Omar at March 26, 2003 12:13 PM

>>>As Jeff said: how else could the "boo people" voice their opinion to counter the "cheer people"?

Not cheering, no standing ovations, I think.

Kinda like most people did when Polanksi was anounced as the winner.

Posted by: The Blue Spider at March 26, 2003 12:17 PM

">>>As Jeff said: how else could the "boo people" voice their opinion to counter the "cheer people"?

Not cheering, no standing ovations, I think."

So the best way to counter another's action is to sit on my ass? I think I'll call the cops and tell them that.

I'll have to remember that moral standard next time I am awakened early in the morning by jerks.

Posted by: Michael Bregman at March 26, 2003 12:25 PM

Omar, so you're saying the people who didn't like Moore should've not done anything, pretty much leaving the stage to the cheering people? Obviously the effect would be that no one had a problem with what he said, which would give Moore's comments more validity. Unacceptable, sorry.

Posted by: EClark1849 at March 26, 2003 01:07 PM

You know, I'm seriously considering starting my own weblog so I can more fully explain myself sometimes. Since I'm not anyone of note, yet, I suppose it would just be a chance for me to express my self on a truly public forum, the Internet. That said, let me address somethings.

PAD's position on boycotts and mine differ. I don't consider a boycott repression of your right to free speech, but I do consider it a consequence. It's possible that what ever you say may tick some people off so much that they may stop buying your stuff. Your constituitonal right of freedom of speech merely stops the GOVERNMENT from censoring you. Unless someone knows something I don't, the GOVERNMENT has done nothing to infringe upon the Dixie Chicks, Michael Moore's, or Sean Penn's right to freely express themselves. Their fans did, and their fans have every right to support or NOT support an artist for saying or DOING something they don't like.

People who don't want to fight shouldn't join the military, period, not even for college tuition or federal assistance in buying a house. To support someone means to give aid, comfort, and approval for what they are, do or have done. I'll always love my brother, but he wouldn't have my support if he were cheating on his wife or beating his kids. I don't support people who are doing things I don't approve of, especially since the most basic definition of support is to give approval, encourage, or uphold. I mean, every taxpayper supports their troops, whether they want to or not, and if that's the definition you're using, fine. Otherwise, I just don't see it. Sorry.

Posted by: Joe Slepski at March 26, 2003 02:01 PM

Coming in quite late to this topic...

What Michael Moore did was not a "spirited discussion". A discussion implies more than one person engaged in conversation.

Michael Moore conducted a "Spirited Diatribe". Diatribes don't typically welcome debate and discourse.

I do like Moore's work, but I thought his "speech" at the Oscar's was low rent and not very pertinent to the current reality.

But hey, I loved Supergirl #80!

-JoeS

Posted by: Julio Diaz at March 26, 2003 02:32 PM

Two points:

First: "The Awards are given by the Academy of Motion Pictures Arts. I assume Michael Moore is a member of the Academy. How illegitimate is it for a member to take a stand at a fuction of a group he's a member of? (It might be improper, but how illegitimate?). "

I don't know whether Moore was a member of the Academy before winning, but he likely can become one now. From http://www.oscars.org/academy/history2.html:

"Membership in the Academy is by invitation of the Board of Governors and is limited to those who have achieved distinction in the arts and sciences of motion pictures. Some of the criteria for admittance are: film credits of a caliber which reflect the high standards of the Academy, receipt of an Academy Award nomination, achievement of unique distinction, earning of special merit, or making of an outstanding contribution to film.

Members represent 14 branches - Actors, Art Directors, Cinematographers, Directors, Documentary, Executives, Film Editors, Music, Producers, Public Relations, Short Films and Feature Animation, Sound, Visual Effects and Writers.

A candidate for membership in the Academy must be sponsored by at least two members of the branch for which the person may qualify. Each proposed member must first receive the favorable endorsement of the appropriate branch executive committee before his or her name is submitted to the Board of Governors for its approval."

So the nomination would give him an "in," and it's my understanding that most nominees are invited to join.

The Academy does not directly involve itself in politics, but there's no prohibition from its members doing so.

Incidentally, my understanding is that Kevin Smith became a member by virtue of being an executive producer on GOOD WILL HUNTING.

Second: "Luigi Novi: His home is valued at $1.9 million."

I'll have to check my copy of STUPID WHITE MEN again, but my understanding is that he bought his home several years ago when it was valued at much less. I know he discusses it in the book, but I don't recall verbatim.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 26, 2003 03:24 PM

According to the Internet Movie Database, Julio, he admitted it on Hannity & Colmes.

Michael Bregman: Luigi, I obviously wasn't talking about physical violence.

Luigi Novi: The word violence specifically refers to physical force.

Michael Bregman: BTW, how many Mario Bros jokes do you get a day?

Luigi Novi: Today, none. In high school, every day, it seemed. :)

EClark1849: People who don't want to fight shouldn't join the military, period, not even for college tuition or federal assistance in buying a house.

Luigi Novi: Agreed. Who do you know has joined who doesn’t want to fight?

The earlier point, as I recall, had nothing to do with people who join the military who don’t want to fight; it had to do with how those who are against the war (the decent ones, at least) direct their protest toward the government, and not at the individual soldiers, who are just doing their job, and who the protesters want to come home safe and sound.

Again—what if someone is spurred to join because some military action that the country is largely behind, like say our invasion of Afghanistan? Was the person wrong to join then? In the view of someone who was for that invasion, no, he wasn’t. But then what if he is shipped off to fight in a war that many are against, like our invasion of Iraq? Is it his fault that his superiors or the president ordered him there? No. If I were against the war, I’d direct my dissent at those that make the decisions to go to war, because my disagreement would be with them, not a friend or relative in the military, whom I want to come home safe and sound.

EClark1849: To support someone means to give aid, comfort, and approval for what they are, do or have done. I'll always love my brother, but he wouldn't have my support if he were cheating on his wife or beating his kids.

Luigi Novi: You’re equating joining the military—a perfectly honorable thing to do—with infidelity and spousal abuse?

I don’t think any war protesters purport to “support” our troops in the sense of agreeing with the war; They simply don’t bear any ill will toward them if they see them on the street. Their ill will is directed at the president and the government.

Posted by: Mike at March 26, 2003 05:02 PM

"I will admit that there were diplomatic shortcomings in preparation for this action"

And the understatement of the millenium award goes to....

Posted by: EClark1849 at March 26, 2003 06:39 PM

<

**Luigi Novi: Agreed. Who do you know has joined who doesn’t want to fight?

The earlier point, as I recall, had nothing to do with people who join the military who don’t want to fight; it had to do with how those who are against the war (the decent ones, at least) direct their protest toward the government, and not at the individual soldiers, who are just doing their job, and who the protesters want to come home safe and sound.**>>

I reiterate my point Luigi which you seem to be skipping all over. Soldiers should and usually do join to fight, but yes some join just for the benefits and hope they don't have to fight. It happens. Soldiers go AWOL all the time when they realize this.

Next: If they're joining to fight, they HAVE to realize that they may be called to fight or do a tour somewhere they don't want to go. Heck it's usually explained to them when they sign up. That being the case, They support the actions their country takes, which means if you support them, you support the action as well.

<

**Luigi Novi: You’re equating joining the military—a perfectly honorable thing to do—with infidelity and spousal abuse?

I don’t think any war protesters purport to “support” our troops in the sense of agreeing with the war; They simply don’t bear any ill will toward them if they see them on the street. Their ill will is directed at the president and the government. **>>

I don't bear any ill will to people who don't support the war, but it doesn't mean that I support them. I just support their right to have that view, and I support that because EVERYONE has that right.

I support our troops because I believe in and approve of their mission. If I didn't , I wouldn't support them. Doesn't mean I'd want to see them harmed. Heck, I 'm for the war and I don't even want to see the Iraqi soldiers harmed. I wish they'd just quit fighting. Doesn't mean I support them in their mission.

Posted by: Daniel at March 26, 2003 08:56 PM

I'm with you on this PAD. Seeking to silence or disparage those who oppose the official position of thstate sets us down a dark and dangerous path that leads to a very UNamerican America.

Posted by: Mark Lindsay at March 26, 2003 09:02 PM

>>What I'm saying--and I thought this was clear, but obviously it wasn't--is that for many people in this country, freedom of speech is not met with more freedom of speech, as it should be. It's met instead with threats. With boycotts. With attacks not on what's being said, but on those who are saying them. With hostility that those who have opposing views would dare to say such a thing, and they must therefore be punished for those actions.>>

>>I just don't have that kind of mental filter that inclines me to walk away from a project I'd otherwise patronize simply because of the attitudes of the creators. >>

Peter, I see your point, but I disagree. It's not about punishment or silencing, it's about support. I'm not going to support Pat Robertson because he espouses a lot of right-wing religious zealotry - even though I'm a person of faith. I just don't think my money needs to go there. I won't threaten him or prevent him from speaking, but I won't help him either.

Posted by: Richard Franklin at March 26, 2003 09:14 PM

"Richard Franklin: I'm curious. Where did Michael Moore out and out lie in Bowling For Columbine? Please supply source material for your argument.

Luigi Novi: Haven’t you been reading this board? Jim posted this link yesterday that details a lot of Moore’s lies and distortions, which reference provided: http://opinionjournal.com/diary/?id=110003233";

Missed it. Sorry. I was genuinely curious what he felt Michael Moore was lying about. Personally, I respect Mr. Moore but I'm intelligent enough to understand that he may not present everything in his documentaries without a slant to them so I take everything he says with a grain of salt, but it does make me think which is what I enjoy about his films.

As far as his lying goes, the article that was linked here does seem to indicate that Mr. Moore did indeed slant things for his position and several times the article did quote other sources which is what you should do when writing an article of this nature. However, that article was also biased because it choose to only cover the facts that Moore had slanted and it skipped over about 75% of the movie so I don't think you could say based on that article that everything Michael Moore states is a lie exactly. Just realize that he does tend to slant things a certain way.

Posted by: ryard at March 26, 2003 10:51 PM

Zeitenflug said:

Many countries (Russia, Germany, France, Japan and so on, about 250 countries are opposing the US attack of Iraq) say, it would be better to avoid war and to apply other means. After all, when the Iraqian people are dead, it's hard to free them.

Great googly moogly...you're gonna have to back up that 250 countries statement...I only count about 200 countries overall! Maybe my Google search is off. Anyway, since there are already over forty in the coalition (more than the first Gulf War, I am led to believe), well, let's just say I think you were a little off in your numbers.

In fact, everything I have seen states that there are only a handful of countries actively OPPOSED to the war. Guess the key word there is actively. Matter of opinion, I guess. They're opposed to the war but aren't actually DOING anything about it other than saying "naughty naughty."

And besides, don't forget that France has pledged to help the coalition if chemical weapons are used, so how exactly are they exhausting all other means in that case? It's a strict if-then.

I remember Tom Daschle in 1998 when Clinton bombed Iraq. He said that Clinton had exausted all diplomatic options and had no choice. That was after, you know, zero resolutions and with no disclosure to the American people beforehand. Now Tom Daschle talks about Bush's failure in diplomacy in this 13 year headlong rush to war. How much time do we have to give here?

Gordon said:

The new right is all about controlling the message, and if you're not part of the message, you better shut up or face their wrath

I disagree with this, but since the "old left" has been playing this game for decades, I can't say I have any sympathy for it either.

Someone said:

"Membership in the Academy is by invitation of the Board of Governors and is limited to those who have achieved distinction in the arts and sciences of motion pictures. Some of the criteria for admittance are: film credits of a caliber which reflect the high standards of the Academy, receipt of an Academy Award nomination, achievement of unique distinction, earning of special merit, or making of an outstanding contribution to film.

I dunno. I teach high school and one of my sophomore students was a member. She had done a couple McDonalds commercials...and her brother did one of the voices in that Snow White "Happily Ever After" film... Anyway, she loaned me her Academy copy of Shakespeare in Love several months before it came out on video, and every thirty minutes or so, the whole "Property of the MMPA" stuff scrolled across...or whatever the acronym is. So, the moral of this rambling story is, do a couple McDonalds commercials and Harvey Weinstein will send you a copy of his movie just in case.

Daniel said:

Seeking to silence or disparage those who oppose the official position of thstate sets us down a dark and dangerous path that leads to a very UNamerican America.

Again, I dunno. I have no problem with booing down a KKK member who is complaining about the official position of the state. He can say what he wants, sure. I'll heckle him. Now, when the GOVERNMENT tells people they can't say what they want...

You know, like the Pledge in schools...hmm....

Wow. I'm asking for it with that last line.

Posted by: The Blue Spider at March 26, 2003 11:30 PM

The article had a slant! Of course it did! The thesis was that Micheal Moore was a liar. And then it pointed out examples of Micheal Moore lying!

Gee, you think maybe those examples prove that he lies in his films? That the films include fiction? That these then aren't documentaries?

My gosh, you are so freaking relativistic.

Posted by: Cameron at March 27, 2003 12:55 AM

From Jeff

"Gotta disagree here. Cheering is a display of affection and/or agreement. Booing is a display of contempt (for lack of a better word) or disagreement. If someone's going to stand up in public and express their opinion, they should be ready for either display."

THANK YOU. well said

Posted by: rogerburks at March 27, 2003 01:21 AM

One thing I have trouble explaining to my friends is that Moore didn't actually prove anything in his documentary. I don't think he fully set out to do so. Although his opinions are made obvious, he tried to entertain other explanations. The most interesting part to me was when he found out that bullets were cheaply available to Canadian Wal-Mart customers. That blows out of the water the entire campaign against K-Mart. I have some liberal friends who could not understand this point despite my doing everything but state it in a logical formula. Another point, that it is the media that makes Americans paranoid and violent, is interesting, but does not fully explain anything. What makes the median that way? Answer: we do. Our influence upon the media creates a positive feedback loop, for sure, but how did it get started? It originated in us. Why?

Posted by: rogerburks at March 27, 2003 01:23 AM

of course I meant "media" in that question, not median. I'm not talking about a grassy knoll here, or am I? Probably time for sleep, then I'll have it figured out.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 27, 2003 03:17 AM

Peter David: Booing is not expressing an opinion. Booing is an attempt to silence.

Luigi Novi: Not necessarily. That would seem to be a matter of intent, and a person may very well choose to boo with the simple intention of voicing their displeasure. People don’t necessarily boo to silence someone. To do so would require that there are enough people in the audience to assist you to make your collective boos louder than the guy using the microphone, and there’s no guarantee of that. Even large portions of the audience would have trouble booing louder than a guy with a microphone, and if you believe Moore, only five people booed him. If that’s true, how can it be an attempt to silence? Saying that booing is just an attempt to silence is an unfounded assumption, an assertion made with no proof, and a mischaracterization.

I also find it disingenuous to refer to either Moore’s rant or Natalie Maines’ rhetoric as “spirited discussion.” Had one of them said, “The war is unjust because it’s illegal and violates the United Nations’ vote and the desires of many countries,” that would’ve been one thing. Had they said, “The war is wrong because it will cause a humanitarian disaster,” or “Our policy with Iraq is inconsistent with how we deal with dictators in Cuba, North Korea, China, etc.” (and in the proper forum) that would’ve been one thing too. But spouting off about the 2000 election, and being ashamed that the Prez is from the same state as you, is just ad hominem rhetoric. (And I voted for Gore, just so you know.)

EClark1849: I reiterate my point Luigi which you seem to be skipping all over. Soldiers should and usually do join to fight, but yes some join just for the benefits and hope they don't have to fight. It happens. Soldiers go AWOL all the time when they realize this.

Luigi Novi: Soldiers go AWOL all the time??? Got any facts or statistics to back that up? I’d be interested to see them.

And if this was your point, then I must’ve missed it. I could’ve sworn that your original point I was responding to was your inability to understand how someone could be against the war but not against our troops.

EClark1849: If they're joining to fight, they HAVE to realize that they may be called to fight or do a tour somewhere they don't want to go. Heck it's usually explained to them when they sign up.

Luigi Novi: Which is precisely why good-faith protestors direct their protests at the government, and not at soldiers, and why one who is against the war can still be supportive of our troops as far as wanting them to be safe and come home in one piece. There’s no contradiction in this. I could be against the war, but still walk up to a soldier and shake his hand for doing a dangerous, life-threatening job for good intentions.

EClark1849: That being the case, They support the actions their country takes…

Luigi Novi: No.

They do not necessarily support the actions their country takes. They do what they do because they’re ordered to.

Again, CitizenA is inspired by the courage of his military during a war that he and is country is mostly behind, like WWII. He joins. The President/Congress then sends him and the military off to a war that he doesn’t agree with morally or philosophically. Why does he go? Because he supports his government’s position? No. Because he’s ordered to, and cannot disobey orders. Going AWOL and being branded a deserter and having to live on the run or in another country is not exactly a viable or attractive option that’s open to him. You don’t know when you join whether you’re going to fight in a war that’s popular or unpopular.

EClark1849: which means if you support them, you support the action as well.

Luigi Novi: Personally, I’ve never heard war protestors say that they’re against the war, but “support” our troops. I have heard them opine that they don’t direct their complaints or vitriol at soldiers (though some, unfortunately do do that), but even if those against the war do use the word “support” with regard to our troops, it’s obvious that they simply mean they bear them no ill will.

I can choose not to support the war, while not necessarily condemning my brothers and sisters who joined in good faith and serve their country because their ordered to.

EClark1849: I don't bear any ill will to people who don't support the war, but it doesn't mean that I support them. I just support their right to have that view…

Luigi Novi: And? What’s your point?

It seems that you’re using the word “support” somewhat loosely, to sometimes mean “agree with” and sometimes mean “respect the right of.” Perhaps we should establish a common meaning in order to both use the word.

You say, ”it doesn't mean that I support them” to connote that you disagree with them, and then say, ” I just support their right to have that view” to connote that you respect their rights. If you can use the word this interchangeably, then why do you find it so inscrutable for someone to say that they’re against the war, but not against the troops, especially if by that second half of the statement it’s clear that they simply mean that they bear soldiers no ill will and want them to come home soon and safe and sound?

EClark1849: I support our troops because I believe in and approve of their mission. If I didn't , I wouldn't support them. Doesn't mean I'd want to see them harmed.

Luigi Novi: You just described the very viewpoint you claimed earlier not to understand. :)

I think the confusion on your part is, you think of “support” as referring specifically to first part of that statement only, when it can also be understood to describe the last part.

Richard Franklin: However, that article was also biased because it choose to only cover the facts that Moore had slanted and it skipped over about 75% of the movie

Luigi Novi: That’s not what the word “biased” means.

Bias refers to a predisposition on the part of someone that causes them to be less than honest and object in the way they argue a point or present the facts. If the charges leveled at Moore on these sites is accurate, then Moore has deliberately lied about numerous things in Bowling for Columbine, and most certainly because of his bias.

Bias has nothing to do with how much material of a given work one covers to prove a point. What you’re trying to argue is that John Fund did not sample a large enough amount of the movie to prove his point. This not only has nothing to do with the meaning of the word “bias,” it’s flat-out untrue, as anyone who reads this reports can see.

The report mentions at least six significant portions of the movie that depict the facts less than accurately:

1. The nature of the Lockheed Martin plant, and what they build there. (2min. 29sec.)

2. The way Moore was supposedly able to easily get a rifle when opening an account at a bank. (1min. 49sec.)

3. The circumstances surrounding the shooting at Buell, the young shooter, his mother’s employment, and the house where the boy got the gun (14min. 57sec.)

4. The U.S.’s supposed aid to the Taliban. (30sec.)

5. The manner in which Charlton Heston and the NRA supposedly react to tragic school shootings (10:45sec.)

6. The way in the which the Willie Horton ad was used during the 1988 Presidential campaign. (5sec.)

The report also looks at an assertion Moore makes in his book Stupid White Men about Bush’s Presidential campaign budget, and comments he made to Lou Dobb’s about the accuracy of his work.

And of course, there are other sources that point out glaring inaccuracies in the movie. At http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html, David T. Hardy points out flat-out lies in Bowling’s animated sequence equating the KKK with the NRA (3min. 10sec.), the comparisons between the gun culture in Canada and the gun culture in the U.S. (10min. 58sec.), including a segment of the film in which Moore buys ammo at a Canadian Wal-Mart. That’s about eight points of argument right there.

Putting aside the fact that these scenes account for 37% of the film, not 25% (The film is 1 hour, 56 minutes and 45 seconds, not counting opening title sequences or end credits), and that even a documentary whose material is 25% inaccurate or false is itself enough to call the quality of the “documentary” into question, your argument, Richard, that Fund did not cover the rest of the film is simply obtuse. The veracity of a documentary, and the objectivity and honesty of its author is not a matter of shear percentage of the running time, it’s a matter of whether the most prominently depicted portions of the material are accurate. The material cited may not comprise the majority of the film, but they certainly comprise a large portion of it, and more importantly, its most controversial and seemingly damning arguments that Moore puts forward in it. Just how much of a documentary has to be lies in order for the film as a whole can be called into question? 25% isn’t enough? 37% isn’t enough? Does it have to be 50%? 90?

I would ask the question I often ask when someone counters that inaccuracies that pointed out in their argument are not veridically significant: If they’re not that significant, then why did Moore put them in? He didn’t make a mistake when he edited footage of Charlton Heston’s speeches. He deliberately juxtaposed different snippets of footage and dialogue to portray Heston in a manner that was not truthful, and in so doing, maligned him. If these distortions are not a big deal when judging the film, then why did Moore simply not make them in the first place? Simple. Because when one lies like this, one does so because they know that they can’t make their point alone with the truth alone, which means their point is not a solid one to begin with. If your argument can only be made through lies, then your argument has failed. If one responds to reportage of these falsehoods by saying, “What’s the difference?”, my response would be “If there’s no difference, why did the guy put them in there?”

On a side note, yet another that no one mentions is Moore’s confrontation with Dick Clark. While this was not an example of inaccuracy, I did see it as somewhat distasteful (even when I first saw the movie and was rooting for Moore), because Moore placed Clark in a difficult position by confronting him when Clark was in the middle of going somewhere. Shouldn’t Moore have called Clark up and made an appointment? Perhaps he did, and he got David Spade on the other line saying, “And you are……?”, but if so, he never mentions it in the film. Had he done so, then confronting Clark in the parking lot might have seemed less avoidable.

EClark1849: …so I don't think you could say based on that article that everything Michael Moore states is a lie exactly.

Luigi Novi: Agreed. Because no one said it was. The only one that said “everything” was you.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 27, 2003 03:48 AM

This letter by Moore was posted on Roger Ebert's site at http://www.suntimes.com/output/answ-man/sho-sunday-ebert231.htm:

I am sorry you had to reprint Internet crap in your column today. It is a lie to say anything but the following:

1. I was handed that gun in that bank and walked out with it and have it in my possession to this day. I NEVER had to go to any gun shop. The scene happened just the way you saw it. I'd be happy to send you all the raw footage.

2. The Columbine shooters DID go to the bowling alley that morning. I can supply you with the five witnesses, including their teacher. It's all there in the investigation conducted by the state of Colorado.

I don't understand why, after all these years, you would run stuff that wasn't true. It was hugely disappointing to read it.

I never really commented on the second point because I didn't see whether Klebold and Harris went bowling that morning as an important point. As for the first, Moore does not address the assertion made at the Opinion Journal that the scene was pre-arranged a month in advance, and that picking up the gun from a gun shop somewhere else is what a customer would normally have had to do. As it states at the Opinion Journal:

Jan Jacobson, the bank employee who worked with Mr. Moore on his account, says that only happened because Mr. Moore's film company had worked for a month to stage the scene. "What happened at the bank was a prearranged thing," she says. The gun was brought from a gun dealer in another city, where it would normally have to be picked up. "Typically, you're looking at a week to 10 days waiting period," she says. Ms. Jacobson feels used: "He just portrayed us as backward hicks."

Posted by: Gordon at March 27, 2003 05:08 AM

Michael Bregman writes: Gordon,paranoid much? Are the evil rightists are out to get you and silence you forever? Poor Moore who got an Oscar and his speech reprinted all over the world should get sympathy exactly why?

There are rightist elements in a media that is mostly leftist. Live with it.

So your best response is to insult? I guess my point is made....

Posted by: Robert at March 27, 2003 07:54 PM

I used to like you Mr. David, but now, not so much.

Posted by: Robert at March 27, 2003 07:54 PM

I used to like you Mr. David, but now, not so much.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 28, 2003 12:56 AM

You mean you like him now even less than the first time you posted?

:)

Posted by: Simon at March 28, 2003 04:49 AM

I'm with PAD on the booing thing,and it cuts both ways.When you see groups such as environmentalists at a rally and some government speaker comes on the 'hard-core' usually totally drown out anything they have to say when most would probably like to hear the other side.

Then again Luigi Novi's right too,sporadic cheering(like booing) is ok,and you could drown out a speech with cheering/clapping too,usually the speaker waits for this to subside.

Anyway,I didn't watch it,and barely know who Michael Moore is,was reading comics at the time..

(didn't read half these messages too erm)

SW.

Posted by: Richard Franklin at March 28, 2003 12:41 PM

"Luigi Novi: That’s not what the word “biased” means."

Yes that is exactly what biased means.

"Bias has nothing to do with how much material of a given work one covers to prove a point. What you’re trying to argue is that John Fund did not sample a large enough amount of the movie to prove his point. This not only has nothing to do with the meaning of the word “bias,” it’s flat-out untrue, as anyone who reads this reports can see."

Definitions of bias from dictionary.com :

"A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment."

"A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others."

The article was biased. The article set out to prove that Michael Moore was a liar, that is being biased by definition. I'm not saying that Moore didn't misrepresent some things, but he does also tell a lot of truth in his films as well. Can you believe everything he says? No. Personally I question the veracity of any documentary because by their very nature they are biased because the majority of them are trying to state something in particular and they usually do not present an opposing view or if they do, they attempt to discredit it.

One area where that article presents a biased view is where he states you can throw out Moore's statistics because they don't take into account population density because Canada doesn't have as dense a population center as the U.S. He fails to mention that Moore also presented statistics of crime in Japan which are lower than the U.S. and yet they have a higher population density.

Now remember that I did state that Michael Moore presents a slanted view of things. He has a nasty tendency to put people in uncomfortable situations to make them look bad.

Always question the veracity of any documentary or for that matter anything you might hear in the news. It is best to get your information from a multitude of sources so that you can form your own well-informed opinion.

Posted by: Omar at March 28, 2003 02:34 PM

>>So the best way to counter another's action is to sit on my ass?

Try not to take things out of context, please. Let's put this where it belongs: a televised, public award ceremony.

I think it would be cool if you watch other events (previous academy awards or simlar events, for example)to see the efect in action.

You can judge how well a person is approved by the audience by just hearing the cheering and claping. And let's not forget when the camera focus the audiences (once again, like when Roman Polanski won) you can see if a lot of people or just a few are giving an standing ovation or even clapping.

Posted by: The Blue Spider at March 28, 2003 02:39 PM

"The article set out to prove that Michael Moore was a liar, that is being biased by definition. I'm not saying that Moore didn't misrepresent some things, but he does also tell a lot of truth in his films as well."

Moore deliberately misrepresented things. That means he lied. That makes him a liar. He is a liar because he engaged in the act of lying. Do you need to look that up too?

He also didn't write and direct a documentary. A documentary is a work of nonfiction, according the the rules of the Academy. Having deliberately misrepresented facts, i.e. he lied i.e. he told a fictionalized accounting, Moore obviously didn't write and direct a documentary.

Or did he? No, he didn't.

As for the bias of the article, if the purpose of the writer was to find misrepresentations of facts in Moore's work, it would not be too hard to find such misrepresentations. In fact, if the writer was impartial in general and only partial to absolutism and truth he would still find these misrepresentations had he looked for them.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 28, 2003 03:22 PM

Richard Franklin: Definitions of bias from dictionary.com :

"A preference or an inclination, especially one that inhibits impartial judgment."

"A statistical sampling or testing error caused by systematically favoring some outcomes over others."

Luigi Novi: Which has absolutely nothing to do with focusing on several points of contention to the exclusion of the rest of the film, which is what you originally stated constituted bias. If Fund (and Hardy, the author of the other article I mentioned) focused on those several points, it’s because those were the points that were brought up as being of questionable veracity. It’s idiotic to say that, “Well, um, they looked at eight different portions of the film that comprise 37% percent of the film, but hey, they didn’t look at the other 63%!”

The only way excluding the rest of the film becomes a relevant counterargument to Fund and Hardy’s assertions is if there is material in those portions that directly contradicts the conclusions or implications about the portions that were examined.

The animated sequence implies that the KKK and the NRA were closely tied. Hardy showed that that’s untrue. Was there some other relevant portion of the movie that if looked at, would put this assertion in a new light? No.

Fund describes that the footage of Charlton Heston’s speeches was edited in a way that can only be described as blatantly malicious. Does some other portion of the movie prove that it isn’t? No.

Your argument that this material, which comprises 37% of the film, is not damning because the rest of the film is ignored, is obtuse. Fund and Hardy explored the portions of the film whose veracity and accuracy were called into question. That they found solid ground for these accusations is not mitigated by Moore telling the truth in some other part of the film. If they didn’t bring up other parts of the film, like say, Moore’s interview with James Nichols, it’s because there was no need to, because there was no indication that it was dishonestly filmed or edited. The idea, therefore, that the accusation that the NRA and KKK were closely tied is somehow excused or dismissed because Moore’s interview with James Nichols was accurate, or that Moore’s deliberately editing footage of Charlton Heston’s speeches to make him look like an arrogant jerk devoid of compassion is okay because he got K-Mart to stop selling 9mm ammunition, is a shoddy argument.

Richard Franklin: The article was biased. The article set out to prove that Michael Moore was a liar…

Luigi Novi: Um, no, you don’t know that. You know that the article made that assertion. You don’t know whether that was what they set out to do regardless of the evidence the author found. That’s an assumption on your part.

These matters could’ve been brought to the attention of Fund and Hardy any number of ways. An editor they work for said, “Hey, we’ve been getting various tips that some of the stuff in that Michael Moore film isn’t accurate. Check it out.” Or the authors simply watched the movie themselves and caught some things that raised a red flag. In any case, bias can only be asserted if the authors deliberately embraced evidence that conformed to the predisposed idea that these things were inaccurate, and deliberately ignored evidence that did not.

You seem to be confusing having a central idea or theme to explore for a literary work (an article, a book, a term paper) with having a bias. ALL writers, be it a high school student writing a term paper, to a newspaper columnist writing an article, have such an idea when they write any type of essay or article. The question isn’t whether they have such an idea, but whether they are willing to draw a conclusion based solely on the evidence. If Fund and Hardy looked at their information objectively, and were willing to conclude that Moore was not dishonest in his film if the evidence indicated so, then they were not biased. That they concluded Moore was deliberately dishonest appears to simply be because the evidence they found indicated he was.

Let’s say a teacher gives me a term paper assignment, or my editor gives me an assignment at a newspaper. They want me to explore the question of whether or not George W. Bush truly won the 2000 Election. I do my research, and conclude that he did. A pro-Gore person accuses me of bias. Sorry, but it doesn’t work that way. Bias cannot be determined simply on the basis of the question being explored, or the even the conclusion that is reached. You have to show that the research and the examination of the evidence was not only deeply flawed, but deliberately so. For a pro-Gore person to automatically assume I reached the conclusion I did because of my political leanings says more about that person’s bias than it does about mine, especially since I myself voted for Gore.

You have to prove that Fund and Hardy would not have concluded that Moore was dishonest had the evidence indicated that he wasn’t. You have not.

Richard Franklin: I'm not saying that Moore didn't misrepresent some things, but he does also tell a lot of truth in his films as well.

Luigi Novi: What does that have to do with anything? Again, a truth does not cancel out a lie. It is moral relativism to say that doing a good thing somehow excuses doing a bad thing. If Moore deliberately misrepresented things, and these things amounted to prominent points that his film made, and large segments of the film, the film as whole is called into question, regardless of whether other parts of the film are accurate.

Richard Franklin: Personally I question the veracity of any documentary because by their very nature they are biased because the majority of them are trying to state something in particular and they usually do not present an opposing view or if they do, they attempt to discredit it.

Luigi Novi: You’ve seen many documentaries?

Richard Franklin: One area where that article presents a biased view is where he states you can throw out Moore's statistics because they don't take into account population density because Canada doesn't have as dense a population center as the U.S. He fails to mention that Moore also presented statistics of crime in Japan which are lower than the U.S. and yet they have a higher population density.

Luigi Novi: That has nothing to do with bias.

Again, if the article focuses on Moore’s assertions about Canada’s crime rate and population density, it’s because that’s the portion of the film whose veracity is called into question. Moore spent 11 minutes of the film exploring the Canada/U.S. comparison. He did not do so with Japan.

At best, you may have found an interesting counterpoint to make to Fund, but finding a good counterpoint to make does not, ipso, facto mean that Fund’s arguments about Moore’s depiction of Canada are biased. Hell, even if you could prove that Fund’s arguments are flat-out wrong, that doesn’t automatically signal bias, because it doesn’t exclude the possibility that Fund simply made an honest mistake, or overlooked some piece of information. (By contrast, the clever editing of Charlton Heston’s speeches could only have been deliberate.) You seem to throw the word “bias” around to denote any kind of disagreement with another person’s argument or position. Sorry, Richard, but it doesn’t work that way.

I also find it interesting that this is the only disputed part of the film that you commented on, and that you have not said anything about the other seven or so points. If we were to follow your logic, Richard, then you’re biased, because your only focused on 12.5% of the portions of the film Fund and Hardy have argued, and ignored the other 87.5%.

Posted by: The Blue Spider at March 28, 2003 04:33 PM

>>So the best way to counter another's action is to sit on my ass?

"Try not to take things out of context, please. Let's put this where it belongs: a televised, public award ceremony."

I think my idea is applicable both within your given context and without.

A silent sam is no match for a cheering, screaming, moving fool. The animate are going to show more support than the unmoving can remove. But a boo is certainly an anti-cheer. And it certainly isn't censorship within the context of Moore and the Oscars.

Posted by: EClark1849 at March 29, 2003 02:36 PM

Hey, Luigi,

I say enough things to get myself in trouble without people attributing things to me which I never stated. Other than to briefly mention Michael Moore in passing, I never said the following:

EClark1849: …so I don't think you could say based on that article that everything Michael Moore states is a lie exactly.

I don't know who did, but it wasn't me.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 29, 2003 09:24 PM

I apologize, Clark. In composing my response to Richard Franklin's post, for some reason I wrote your name in attribution to that quote instead of his. My bad! :-)

Posted by: AnthonyX at March 30, 2003 07:02 AM

A few comments about Moore.

Here is a bit from his column on Sept 12, 2001 as posted on his website. This column no longer exists. He has never apologized for these remarks:

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California - these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

So maybe Texas and Florida should havce been targets eh??? In one full swoop they could have gotten rid of thosae pesky anti-communist ex-Cubans.

Alan Edelstein, a producer of Moore's television show The Awful Truth, was suddenly laid off from the program

So, just like Moore, he decided to stalk the boss for a turning-the-tables documentary on why the television star had put him out on the street.

Moore was not amused. He complained to the NYPD, got Edelstein thrown in jail for a day, and had a restraining order slapped on him. Here's how it read: "The defendant knowingly entered and remained unlawfully in a building with intent to harass, annoy and harm … a course of conduct which alarmed and seriously annoyed another person."

HA! Using his own M.O. on him. Brilliant.

Posted by: EClark1849 at March 30, 2003 09:17 AM

EClark1849: I reiterate my point Luigi which you seem to be skipping all over. Soldiers should and usually do join to fight, but yes some join just for the benefits and hope they don't have to fight. It happens. Soldiers go AWOL all the time when they realize this.

Luigi Novi: Soldiers go AWOL all the time??? Got any facts or statistics to back that up? I’d be interested to see them.

Happy to oblige: the following info came from the Christian Science Monitor August 2001:

In all branches of the military, the number of individuals who are simply walking away from their service commitment is on the rise. Approximately 9,400 deserted from the four main branches during fiscal year 2000. That's less than 1 percent of the 1, 371,280 men and women on active duty that year. But it's also about 2-1/2 times as many as deserted five years earlier, when the total was about 3,800.

It seems that you’re using the word “support” somewhat loosely, to sometimes mean “agree with” and sometimes mean “respect the right of.” Perhaps we should establish a common meaning in order to both use the word.

Nope, I used very specific definitions, "approval of " or "to encourage". And those came from the Webster's dictionary.

EClark1849: I support our troops because I believe in and approve of their mission. If I didn't , I wouldn't support them. Doesn't mean I'd want to see them harmed.

Luigi Novi: You just described the very viewpoint you claimed earlier not to understand. :)

You left off the next sentence where I also said I didn't want to see the Iraqi troops hurt and I don't support their actions or their views.

I don't want to see most humans harmed, which has nothing to do with supporting their views or actions.

BTW, I enjoy debating you, but I don't think it's fair to PAD to eat up his webspace. If you want to go on, let's go to email.

Posted by: Luigi Novi at March 30, 2003 01:23 PM

Luigi Novi: Soldiers go AWOL all the time??? Got any facts or statistics to back that up? I’d be interested to see them.

EClark 1849: The following info came from the Christian Science Monitor August 2001:

In all branches of the military, the number of individuals who are simply walking away from their service commitment is on the rise. Approximately 9,400 deserted from the four main branches during fiscal year 2000. That's less than 1 percent of the 1,371,280 men and women on active duty that year. But it's also about 2-1/2 times as many as deserted five years earlier, when the total was about 3,800.

Luigi Novi: Even if we were to assume that these figures are accurate, it does not make going AWOL a viable choice for a solider who doesn’t agree with his country’s position.

Luigi Novi: It seems that you’re using the word “support” somewhat loosely, to sometimes mean “agree with” and sometimes mean “respect the right of.” Perhaps we should establish a common meaning in order to both use the word.

EClark 1849: Nope, I used very specific definitions, "approval of " or "to encourage". And those came from the Webster's dictionary.

Luigi Novi: Well, excuse me, Clark, but maybe, just maybe, those war protestors who say they don’t support the war but support our troops are using a DIFFERENT one. What does the definition that you use have to do with them? Again, the original point was that you didn’t understand what they meant by that statement. So why are you ascribing your “very specific definitions” to their use of the word?

Webster you say? I just happen to have Merriem Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, and it has SIX main categorizations of the word comprising about SIXTEEN individual definitions. (the entry for the word “support,” in fact, is the largest entry on that page.) So just maybe, the war protestors you claim not to understand are using a different connotation of the word than you are. You claim to use the connotation of “approval” or “encouragement.” I simply assume that when they say they don’t support the war but support their countrymen in the military, that they’re simply using the connotation of “to endure bravely or quietly; bear,” or “to keep from fainting, yielding or losing courage.”

Again, I understand their position perfectly. They do not want their anti-war stance to be interpreted as an anti-military stance, because they know that those in the military are their brothers and sisters, and know what a dangerous and difficult job it is. It’s possible they may be thinking of soldiers who were spat upon or called “baby killer” when returning from Vietnam, and want to distance themselves from that image of protestors as communists, leftists, anarchists, etc. Thus, when they say they support the troops, they may simply mean EMOTIONAL support, not ideological support.

Even if you saw their use of the word wrong, perhaps it might’ve been appropriate to instead focus on what they might have meant.

EClark1849: I support our troops because I believe in and approve of their mission. If I didn't, I wouldn't support them. Doesn't mean I'd want to see them harmed.

Luigi Novi: You just described the very viewpoint you claimed earlier not to understand. :)

EClark1849: You left off the next sentence where I also said I didn't want to see the Iraqi troops hurt and I don't support their actions or their views.

Luigi Novi: Because it wasn’t pertinent to the point. The point I made is that the statement, “If I didn't, I wouldn't support them. Doesn't mean I'd want to see them harmed. is pretty much what the statement you claimed not to understand means. The next sentence had nothing to do with that point.

EClark1849: BTW, I enjoy debating you, but I don't think it's fair to PAD to eat up his webspace. If you want to go on, let's go to email.

Luigi Novi: Thank you. Ditto. However, I think debates like this are why Peter set up this site. To eliminate spam, I keep my Inbox set to “Exclusive,” so I can only receive mail from addresses already in my Address Book. But thanks anyway. :-)

Posted by: Fred Smith at April 3, 2003 02:46 PM

Free speech is the right to say what you want. Free speech is not the right to not have criticism of your beliefs. It works both ways. People can say what the want. But if they voice their opinion don't expect for people to voice their's right back. The only time this is an issue is when the people think they are being censored, when in reality they are not. It's just that most people don't agree with them, thus their arguments are discared.