# Farenheit 9/11



## michaeledward (May 23, 2004)

Michael Moore's newest film won the Cannes film festival's 'Golden Palm' award. The jury awarding this honor included Quinten Tarrantino, Edwidge Danticat, Emmanuelle Beart, Jerry Schatzberg, Kathleen Turner, Peter von Bagh, Tilda Swinton and Tsui Hark.

The film reportedly analizes the connections between the Bush family, and the Saud family (ruling family in Saudia Arabia). It also looks back to the election of 2000, the events surrounding September 11, 2001, and the build up to and the aftermath of the war in Iraq.

As we all have heard, the Disney Company has refused to distribute the film (through Buena Vista Distribution). Apprantly, a deal has been worked out for Mirimax (a Disney subsidiary) to purchase the film, and find a new distribution channel for the film.

What are your opinions of this series of events?
Will you go see the movie?
Do you see this as a bad effect of media deregulation?

I can't wait for the film to open in my neighborhood cinema.

Mike


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 23, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> Michael Moore's newest film won the Cannes film festival's 'Golden Palm' award. The jury awarding this honor included Quinten Tarrantino, Edwidge Danticat, Emmanuelle Beart, Jerry Schatzberg, Kathleen Turner, Peter von Bagh, Tilda Swinton and Tsui Hark.
> 
> The film reportedly analizes the connections between the Bush family, and the Saud family (ruling family in Saudia Arabia). It also looks back to the election of 2000, the events surrounding September 11, 2001, and the build up to and the aftermath of the war in Iraq.
> 
> ...



Well they may be some truth to the Bush Illumanati story. I woudl like to see more of it.

Yet, I will not go see the movie. Micheal Moore, jumps on band wagons and twists and turns scenes to present his propraganda. Some say he is a great reporter of the truth. I say her reports his version, and not unbiased, and in my opinion is extemely biased.

As to Media Deregulation, the only regulation I believe in is for national security dealing with the lives our citizens and our soldiers. Otherwise, if it is history or does not cause damage or risk to our soldiers, then report it.

Micheal Moore is a total Jerk.

Just my opinion
 :asian:


----------



## tshadowchaser (May 23, 2004)

```
Micheal Moore, jumps on band wagons and twists and turns scenes to present his propraganda
```

I tend to agree with this statement.  If it is a Big headline issue he wants to put his slant on it, possibly ignoring many of the facts. ("If it bleeds it makes $$")  I'm not saying he may not have valid points but they will be used in part or twisted to prove his ideas.
 I will not see the movie


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 23, 2004)

I think it's frightening that American citizens need to be afraid of speaking their minds for fear of retribution.  Even MORE frightening is the relationship between the Bush administration and big business, where business influences govt policy, and the govt uses business to advance it's agenda.


----------



## Thesemindz (May 23, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> I think it's frightening that American citizens need to be afraid of speaking their minds for fear of retribution.



Could you please elaborate more on this sentence. I also think it is frightening if American citizens can't speak freely without fear of retribution. What specifically are you talking about here?


-Rob


----------



## Ender (May 23, 2004)

Anything Michael Moore does should be taken with a grain of salt. This unethical mans' "documentaries" are filled with propaganda, lies, innuendoes and staged theatrics. Very little has to do with facts. Maybe he'll win as a comedy..*L


----------



## MisterMike (May 24, 2004)

Ender said:
			
		

> Anything Michael Moore does should be taken with a grain of salt. This unethical mans' "documentaries" are filled with propaganda, lies, innuendoes and staged theatrics. Very little has to do with facts. Maybe he'll win as a comedy..*L



Hah! More like the whole salt mine. The whole Bowling for Columbine thing was a piece of fiction..er umm.. docudrama or whatever, so I wouldn't expect much more from this.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2004)

Unlike, say, a George Bush press conference or a Michael Savage broadcast, I suppose.

Have you actually seen any of  these movies? Can you cite something specific that's an error? Can you cite a source documenting the fact in that particular case?

He's pretty open about what he's propagandizing for. So what's the complaint? Oh, right, forgot--he sees the world differently than you do. 

Hey, call him a pinko America-hater. I just love that.


----------



## MisterMike (May 24, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Unlike, say, a George Bush press conference or a Michael Savage broadcast, I suppose.
> 
> Have you actually seen any of  these movies? Can you cite something specific that's an error? Can you cite a source documenting the fact in that particular case?
> 
> ...



I don't know who Michael Savage is, so I couldn't comment.

I will not see any of these movies because of where the money goes. I have however read reviews on the first (the second is not out yet of course).

No complaint. We don't all walk around so angry like you do. Apparently one of us has insulted one of your heros?


----------



## michaeledward (May 24, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> I will not see any of these movies because of where the money goes. I have however read reviews on the first (the second is not out yet of course).


It is interesting how much the movie review is more important than the movie; how the book review is more important than the book. 

I am reading Eric Alterman's 'What Liberal Media?', and he points out that because so few American's actually read the book, it is more important to get the correct spin on the book review. This apparently is one of the founding purposes of Heritage Foundation. This wonderful think tank regularly submits 'Point-of-View' submissions to over one hundred newspapers to create the correct spin. It is interesting.

On this note ... I am going to start a new thread ... Liberal Media / Conservative Media. I look forward to everyone's participation.

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (May 24, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> It is interesting how much the movie review is more important than the movie; how the book review is more important than the book.



In what respect?

I hope I didn't come across as saying one was more important over the other. by thetime I read reviews of the first movie, it had already been out for over a year. That's plenty of time for people to write about scenes and depictions in the movie.


----------



## michaeledward (May 24, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> In what respect?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


You made a statement concerning the validity / truthfulness of the movie 'Bowling for Columbine' based on reviews of other people. Are you sure that those whose reviews you reviewed actually *saw* the movie?

Your statements were pretty bold for someone who only read the review. 

Mike


----------



## MisterMike (May 24, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> You made a statement concerning the validity / truthfulness of the movie 'Bowling for Columbine' based on reviews of other people. Are you sure that those whose reviews you reviewed actually *saw* the movie?
> 
> Your statements were pretty bold for someone who only read the review.
> 
> Mike



Truthfulness, yes. I think it is bolder to call something a documentary when it stretches the truth, or is in fact, deceptive.

Here's one of the many reviewers who I am sure saw the movie:

http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html

In most cases I will decide on whether to go to a movie based on the preview and some reviews. In this movie's case, from a movie with Gene Hackman, "I've seen better film on teeth."


----------



## michaeledward (May 24, 2004)

We have discussed people's opinions of Bowling for Columbine in other places, and we do not need to revisit that in this thread. 

While offering no opinion in favor of, or against the practice, I was pointing out that many seem to defend and support opinions based on the reviews of a work, rather than the work itself. I find that interesting.

If I describe to you the Mona Lisa, my description, no matter how insightful, is *not* the Mona Lisa. And further, my qualifications to review the Mona Lisa are nowhere evident; as is often the case with complicated topics, the reviewer does not necessarily have the depth of understanding on a given topic as the author.

Things that make you go, "Hmmm."


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2004)

Well, I see that once again a conservative has nothing to offer save personal attack. I could tell you that I don't seem to be the one who's flipping out because somewhere They might be teaching evolution, or marrying gay people, or making movies I don't like, or refusing to validate beatings and torture that I consider necessary, but hey, keep on a-fantasizing. It's certainly easier.

Read, "The Savage Nation," duder. Listen to the nationally syndicated radio show, or catch this guy's act on TV: he's all over the damn place.

Ever wonder whether it's good to argue with people who know more about your own arguments than you do?


----------



## MisterMike (May 24, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Well, I see that once again a conservative has nothing to offer save personal attack. I could tell you that I don't seem to be the one who's flipping out because somewhere They might be teaching evolution, or marrying gay people, or making movies I don't like, or refusing to validate beatings and torture that I consider necessary, but hey, keep on a-fantasizing. It's certainly easier.
> 
> Read, "The Savage Nation," duder. Listen to the nationally syndicated radio show, or catch this guy's act on TV: he's all over the damn place.
> 
> Ever wonder whether it's good to argue with people who know more about your own arguments than you do?



Again a doctor has enlightened us with the labels, sterotypes and inability to read posts except to extract some sort of fantasized attack.


----------



## MisterMike (May 24, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> We have discussed people's opinions of Bowling for Columbine in other places, and we do not need to revisit that in this thread.
> 
> While offering no opinion in favor of, or against the practice, I was pointing out that many seem to defend and support opinions based on the reviews of a work, rather than the work itself. I find that interesting.
> 
> ...



But if 100 people tell you it is a nice painting you might decide to fly to France. If 100 people tell you it isn't worth it, you might put it off a bit eh? Or check it out on the web?

A reviewer may not have insight, but legitimate critics often have just as much or more.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 24, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Unlike, say, a George Bush press conference or a Michael Savage broadcast, I suppose.
> 
> Have you actually seen any of  these movies? Can you cite something specific that's an error? Can you cite a source documenting the fact in that particular case?
> 
> ...



Robert,

I lived in Flint where he filmed a large portion of Roger and Me.

Do a search on Micheal Moore on this site, you will find my other rants.

In general though, he made it look like the CEO od GM did not wish to see him because he had somethign to hide. Nor do to the fact that he did not have an appointment. There is also the case of the Rabbit lady that was put in just ot get people upset. She sold Rabbits for pets of food. He made it look like because GM pulled out jobs from Flint, that people now had to raise and eat Rabbits to get by. This lady and her family, sold rabbits while working for GM. I can go to any city and find a person like this and make it look bad.

Now as to press conferences or new releases, I also think they are full of propaganda, just that these are not billed as documentaries nor as historical version of the truth. They are just what they are. A press release. Do you actually think the other party is not going to take it apart? Of course they are.

So once again Micheal Moore is someone I do not care to see or support. When asked what has he done recently for Flint when he was back again trying to get ideas for a new movie, he found out that the city and the Unions did not have a leg to stand on. Neither party wanted to work with GM. Just to make demands.

There are people who are third generation not working for GM, yet insist that they could have had a Job with GM if they wanted it, but cannot because GM will nto hire people. Large companies are not social security for people. If you work for them expect to work for them and not skip out of work and get paid, or sleep and get paid, or ... , .

And yes, I was raised in a Union house, and understand the needs and reasons for a Union. I just do not like the abuse of power they have done.

 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2004)

1. "This unethical mans' "documentaries" are filled with propaganda, lies, innuendoes and staged theatrics."

2. "We don't all walk around so angry like you do."

Whoops, my bad. No personal attacks there. Whatever was I thinking. The mere fact that types like Rush and Savage say exactly the same sorts of things about people they don't like is pure coincidence. 

I notice, though, that nobody has yet come up with a fact that Moore got wrong--only claims that he's a creep, or assertions about the rabbit lady's meaning, or unsubstantiated claims that it's all the unions' fault. Why is that? Shouldn't be hard, given that everything's so, "filled with...lies."

You're being hoodwinked, guys. People like the directors of GM couldn't care less about their workers, only about their profits: that's what advanced capitalism is, kids.  And the spectacle of Poor Old Benign GM being picked on by the union and government of Flint, Michigan....I weep for them. I truly do. 

You're being intellectually hoodwinked into believing that about the ONLY groups that are on your side--unions--are The Enemy. It is fun to claim that gruops like the AFT are, "terrorist organizations," to quote our incumbent Sec. of Education, and it's even good propaganda. Of course, it's also irresponsible and inaccurate, but what the hell. Much better to keep screaming that your fellow Americans are The Enemy because they disagree with the Powers That Be.

Your workweek is climbing, and has been for years. The cost of education and health care for you and your kids keeps going up. You are living more and more stressed lives, with less and less in terms of job security and benefits. Your real wages are dropping, and have been for years. Your society is becoming more and more rigidly stratified, and you and yours have less and less access to good education. Cuba has a higher literacy rate than we do.

But that is all the unions' fault. It's Michael Moore's fault. It's the feminists' fault, the lesbians' fault, the atheists' fault, the ACLU's fault, the treehuggers' fault, hell, it's probably my damn fault. 

You're being hoodwinked, guys.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 24, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> 1. "This unethical mans' "documentaries" are filled with propaganda, lies, innuendoes and staged theatrics."
> 
> 2. "We don't all walk around so angry like you do."
> 
> ...



Robert,

I am no mroe hoodwinked then you are.

The Unions have brought about a lot of great ideas and accomplishments. Health care to the average worker, Standardized work weeks, Better working conditions, a way to raise issues of helth and safety, or in my mind lots of good ideas. This is not about the Unions per se. 

I also agree that the Corporation GM and other corporations are out to make money. Just take a look at your retirement account or mutual fund and realize that when they do not make money you get upset.

I have a problem with his presentation that he is the one to discover this. He is the one to point out this truth, when it is only a side of a story.

I have a problem with him, when he slinks away from news casts and questions from the audience because he has nothing to wave around and rally people to his flag. The city of Flint and State of Michigan did not honor a renaisance zone set up by the Federal Government. This area was set up to help bring back people and jobs to Flint. The State agreed and supported this site. GM had a site in this zone. They continued to pat there previous agreed upon taxes, yes this got them good press, and was most likely the reason for  doing it. Then the City and the State wanted GM and other large companies in the area to no longer have tax breaks. They wanted to have GM pay an inflated rate. Why? Because everyone knows the BIG companies are all full of money. Until you have to buy their products and then you get upset because it cost so much for their products. Should companies pay their fair share? Yes! Should they be responsible to have people working for them who punch in and then leave and expect to get paid? Should they expect to pay a tax rate that no one else is paying? This is like charging someone more money for the same car or house just because they make more than the next guy. Should the corporations be responsible enough to follow the laws and have a safe palce to work? Yes. Should they be responsible to just hire everyone who lives in a 100 miles from the plant as a form of wellfare? No. Micheal Moore did not present the people who sold drugs, nor did he present the people who were upset about not getting a job, yet they never applied. Is it the responsibility of the corporations to go out and just send a check to everyone in the area just because? This was the expectation of many in the Flint Area.

There were baggers at Grocery stores that made $12+ an hour in 1976, and the cashiers made $13 to start and up to $19 an hour. This became the expectation of everyone in the area. That you could just sit back and get paid more than anyone else in the rest of the country. The general population had an unrealistic expectation, in my opinion.

As to Rush and the others, I do not listen to them either and I do not like them either. If any of them made a movie I woudl nto recommend it either based upon the fact that I would believe it to be othing more then rhetoric and propaganda.

With Respect Robert, I have my opinion and you have yours. I expressed mine. I did not tell you, that yours was wrong. I did not try to convince you to change yours. Please, do not try to change mine. I am open minded, and willing to re-consider, yet it will have to be change upon that of Micheal Moore first before I reconsider. So, in the end I did nto try to change you. Please do not try to change me. I was asked for my opinion. I stated it.

 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 24, 2004)

Big companies ARE, "full of money." That is why they're big companies. And it never fails to amaze me that working Americans so often become angry at the spectacle of other working Americans--like grocery store workers--getting paaid a living wage, and having decent health benefits. Especially given the grotesque profits of companies like Enron, and people like Ken Lay and Michael Eisner, who's damn near run Disney into the ground.

There are reasons cities are voting to keep WalMart away, ya  know. 

And run it by me again: why is Moore at fault because Flint and the State wanted more out of GM? Can you offer a SPECIFIC example of him, "slinking around?"

You're being hoodwinked, guys.


----------



## Cruentus (May 24, 2004)

My opinion.

Micheal Moore presents a point of view. Like any documentary, he has a thesis or point to make, and he presents evidence that will support his points in a manner that he feels will not only support his points, but that will be entertaining as well.

Nothing wrong with that, in my opinion, as this is what movie makers do. I understand that many like him, and many do not. For either, some have valid reasons for their stance, others are just cohorting with no real evidence to support their stance.

I like his movies. I don't think that Moore should run for president, or fix the world; nor do I worship the man as many of his fans do. I don't take his evidence as gospel...I double check his facts. What I have found is that his facts usually match up...it's just the presentation of those facts that people have problems with.

Take it for what it is. If you are expecting to get an unbiased approach from one of his films, you'll be disappointed. If you are expecting a different point of view from what is generally excepted, then they are great films to see.

"Take his films with a grain of salt" I say, take every film with a grain of salt.

On that note, I can't wait to see his new film.  

PAUL


----------



## Cruentus (May 24, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Can you offer a SPECIFIC example of him, "slinking around?"



Actually, Rich can, Robert, as Rich works for GM, is a Flint resident, and was somewhat closer then most of the issue then most of us in the 80's. I hope he'll post his examples.

Moore is not saint, and definatily has an agenda. But, I don't care. I like the point of view he presents, but I take it as that. A point of view.


----------



## michaeledward (May 24, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> On that note, I can't wait to see his new film.
> 
> PAUL


Thank you for addressing the question at hand ... and not the one we didn't settle at Oscar time.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 24, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Big companies ARE, "full of money." That is why they're big companies. And it never fails to amaze me that working Americans so often become angry at the spectacle of other working Americans--like grocery store workers--getting paaid a living wage, and having decent health benefits. Especially given the grotesque profits of companies like Enron, and people like Ken Lay and Michael Eisner, who's damn near run Disney into the ground.
> 
> There are reasons cities are voting to keep WalMart away, ya  know.
> 
> ...




Robert, $16 an hour is about $32,000 a year. Not may made that type of money. At that time Genesee County had the highest standard of living out of the whole Nation. The whole Nation. The county had to have a readjustment and then people were upset at GM being the largest, not the other companies as well.

As to slinking, did he make a film of his visit here to Flint a couple of years ago to address the closing of the plant in question I mentioned? Nope! He left town with out giving comments. He did not find a sensational reason to make a movie about a bunch of greedy city and state people. About a bunch of people born in 1984 who wanted to get a job with no training and not work. He did nto find the next plot in his movie from their parents who were born in 1966 and also did NOT work for GM. Yet, there father or Grand Father depending upon relation could go to work and be sent home and get paid. Or sleep while getting paid, and they were all upset because they could not get into this type of position. The Unions all of them woudl strike and get higher wages, and better benefits. Companies went away and took jobs away because they could not afford to pay three to six times the living wage of 1976.

Micheal Moore had a great fan fare for how he was going to come in and save Flint. Make it a big issue. Then he left town. He did nto make a movie or give a press release. If he had I may have respected him, in particular if he had made comments about how things had changed, and not always for the best either. Yet, he just went away. Did he say anything? No he could not get his press nor his propaganda on the air waves. This makes him slink away , in my opinion. Did he make as grand an exit as his entrance after he found out what the story was? No way. He just left. Then the Unions and city all creid he deserted them and left them hangin out to dry.


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 25, 2004)

What fanfare? Rich, I'm sorry, but it is weird in the extreme to blame Moore for the downfall of Flint. He's a film-maker, fer cryin' out loud.

Companies like GM have been, "outsourcing," jobs--shipping them overseas--for twenty-plus years now. Moreover, when "Roger and Me," got made, the utter refusal of management to adapt combined with the utter greediness of owners and shareholders is what did it. Sorry, really, but blaming unions and socialist wankers...

And what exactly is wrong with working people making a decent wage again? Still not gettin' it...


----------



## MisterMike (May 25, 2004)

Why is it we "need" Unions any more???


----------



## Cruentus (May 25, 2004)

> Then the Unions and city all creid he deserted them and left them hangin out to dry.



This is true. It seems to be a prevalent attitude in Genessee country that Micheal Moore got his story, then deserted his own community. It wouldn't have been so bad, but it is my understanding that Moore got a lot of support for his film from the community by presenting the idea of, "We can do this! We can take back our community!" When it seemed he really meant, "You guys should take back your community...I'm outta here, and moving to New York to work on my next project. You all are on your own."

However, I can in good conscious watch Micheal Moore's films because I am not in genessee county. I'm one of those Rich-*** bastards from Oakland county, just south of Genesse, so I don't associate with those blue collar people. I support Moore because I'm a yuppie who wants to stick it to the man, while I collect my phat check of the sweat of those Genesse county people.  :boing2:  (lol obviously just kidding).

On a serious note, I don't know if he was a "deserter" or if he just decided to work on different projects, and people wrongfully had him up on a pedistle where he didn't belong. As Robert said, "He's just a filmaker." And, I just watch his films.

 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 25, 2004)

"Why is it we "need" Unions any more???"

Well, it's little things. The work-week keeps increasing. Companies are outsourcing jobs like crazy. Health care is harder and harder to afford, and companies are cutting. Benefits are dropping, and companies are reneging on retirement plans. Occupational safety and environmental concerns are being ignored. 

Meanwhile, companies are reporting record profits, CEOs' salaries are skyrocketing, and more and more companies are getting caught cheating.

Oh yes, and worker productivity keeps climbing.

But hey, I know. All this is somehow, perversely, the unions' fault, right?


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 25, 2004)

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> Could you please elaborate more on this sentence. I also think it is frightening if American citizens can't speak freely without fear of retribution. What specifically are you talking about here?
> 
> 
> -Rob


Yes.  The reason why Disney will not release Moore's new film is because their major assets are in Florida, and Disney is afraid that if it is unfavorable to the president, it will adversely affect their tax status in a state governed by Jeb Bush.  That is TERRIFYING to me.


----------



## Touch Of Death (May 25, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Then the Unions and city all creid he deserted them and left them hangin out to dry.


And just what did they expect of him further than bringing the problem to light? Talk about your displaced anger; the ball was in the voter's court and the voters sent more jobs over seas. In fact as I recall he was branded a liar, and now somehow became the problem.
Sean


----------



## Cruentus (May 25, 2004)

I had to chuckle when I heard CNBC today.

Out of nowhere on Capital Report, the reporter (forgot his name) comes on to say, "Following from our story from yesterday, Disney actually didn't try to block Micheal Moores film "Farenhiet 911" from its release in the states. Disney just decided not to distribute the film." That was it; cut to comercial.

I had to laugh outloud. The announcement literally came out of nowhere and was totally random. I guess Eisner and his PR thugs realized that the damn movie's going to be released whether or not Disney distributes it or not. They've already lost some money by not distributing the film, and now they'll have to spend money on PR to back out of looking like smucks when the movie does release.

lol, real smart business decision.

Wouldn't it be sweet justice if their profit loss exceeded their Florida tax breaks?


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 25, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What fanfare? Rich, I'm sorry, but it is weird in the extreme to blame Moore for the downfall of Flint. He's a film-maker, fer cryin' out loud.
> 
> Companies like GM have been, "outsourcing," jobs--shipping them overseas--for twenty-plus years now. Moreover, when "Roger and Me," got made, the utter refusal of management to adapt combined with the utter greediness of owners and shareholders is what did it. Sorry, really, but blaming unions and socialist wankers...
> 
> And what exactly is wrong with working people making a decent wage again? Still not gettin' it...



Robert,

First, Fanfare, the press bites, the news paper articles all about how Micheal Moore was coming back to make another movie. He ate it up. He waved to the crowds, he smiled. Then no follow up. He slinked away. He did not come out and make any statments other than he does not believe he could help Flint.

I do not blame Micheal Moore for the down fall of any city. What happened to Flint and the Jobs were nothing more than an adjustment. The labor rates were too high compared to other areas. In the 1970's Genesee county had the higherst standard of living for many years out of any county in the U.S. A lot of this was based upon the health care and wages provded by the unions. The problem was that the rest of the country could not afford to continue to pay this small area special wages.

The third Item, of what is wrong. I will go real slow here again. Pay attention please. In 1976 making $19 an hour for being a cashier and the Union line workers made upto $16 an hour. Once again 1976. Not today. 28 years ago. Back when minimum wage was about $1.75 or so, and a good wage of the day was between $5 and $10, with really good wages being in the $15 Plus. Engineers made about $15 to $25 an hour. The $25 was for people with 25 to 30 years experience.

Like I said before there is nothing wrong with people making money. There is something wrong with people who expect to get paid without working. That I just do not get. Do you get it? Do you sit on your butt and sleep, and expect to make lots of money including over time? From your past posts here, I do not think so.

Now as to your second item. Jobs over seas. Can you prove this? I would like to read the sources or the sites.

Try reading Business Week Dated March 22, 2004. Cover "Where are the JOBS?"

Page 36 is the cover story.
Page 38 is the The PRice of Efficiency
Page 44 Productivity: Who Wins, Who Losses. 

Etc, ..., 


Page 37

"The Real Culprit
Yet there are things we do know. The real culprit in this jobless recovery is the productivity, not offshoring."

Page 40

"Researchers estimate outsourcing has cost the U.S. just 300,000 jobs in 3 years.

Page 41

"By Contrast, one percentage point of annual productivity growth eliminates about 1.3 Million jobs."

So, please provide me other sources that contrast these points and articles, I have sited.

Like I said, do not try to convince me I am wrong about my opinion. It is my opinion. I do not attack you for your opinions. You may provide data to me, so that I may weigh the information and change my own mind.


 :asian:


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 25, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> "Why is it we "need" Unions any more???"
> 
> Well, it's little things. The work-week keeps increasing. Companies are outsourcing jobs like crazy. Health care is harder and harder to afford, and companies are cutting. Benefits are dropping, and companies are reneging on retirement plans. Occupational safety and environmental concerns are being ignored.
> 
> ...



Robert while I agree with many of the reasons.

Which companies are geneging on retirement plans?

Why is health care going up? because of the large companies that provide it, or because people and fraud? or greedy doctors and nurses? or the large companies that offer it?


As to getting caught cheating. A new law has been rolled out to companies. It requires education by the management about what to report and where to report it. At Enron, many of the employees did not know who to report too. any of the low level managers admitted they tried only they could not find the right auditor to report too. (* This assumes you take there statements at face value. Once again just what I have read in papers and heard on TV's. No source. I apologize. *)


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 25, 2004)

Gee, Rich, you could go real fast and I could use an electron microscope to scan the pages and you'd still be wrong. 

Which companies? Enron. Bethlehem Steel. The Social Security System. Many, many others.

I agree with the, "Business Week," stuff, basically, about jobs. How does this help your argument?

I sit on an advisory Board concerned with health care insurance (83 mil in assests! Whoee!)--it's going up because of drug costs, technology, insane decisions about sustaining the very young and the very old, corporate fiddling, and irresponsible, fat Americans who wouldn't take care of themselves if their life depended on it...oh wait, it does.

I'm glad you believe that this here new regulation about ethics in business will do the trick. They've been saying that though, since the days of Jay Gould and Jim Fisk...

I even agree that you probably shouldn't get paid if you don't work, and that your pay should be in relation to your usefulness. Therefore, none of the 'holes like Eisner should get anything remotely resembling their grotesque salaries.

And as for shipping jobs out--maquiladoras ring a bell? Bhopal? 

Life Savers and Levis: no longer made in the USA. Hm.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 25, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Gee, Rich, you could go real fast and I could use an electron microscope to scan the pages and you'd still be wrong.
> 
> Which companies? Enron. Bethlehem Steel. The Social Security System. Many, many others.
> 
> ...



Ok Robert, I am wrong.

Let me try this now.

In 1976 I said $19 an hour.

$2.3 an hour for minimum wage, for simple math.
(* see the following Link or this Link *)

$19 / $2.3 gives a ratio of 8.26
$19 an hour give $39520 a year.

Minimum wage of today is $6.75

8.26 * $6.75 for the same ratio for a cashier at a grocery store is $55.755 an hourly rate. This is over $115,000 a year. At the same ratio as the cashier in 1976.

I have no problem with a fair wage. I have no problem someone getting what the market can provide. If I can go eslewhere and get the same product I will. People would drive out of the county to shop to get lower prices. So, I guess we started outsourcing to other counties before we did the other countries.



Question on Bethlehem Steel. Did not the new company that bought them out have to provide for their retirement account? If not then was it a percentage on the dollar, or nothing at all?

As to Social Security, I agree that it looks bad. Could we agree that people who never paid in should not pull out? Can we agree that it should be used as supplement in retirement, and not for disabilities? Thsoe disabilities may deserve to be compensated by our society, yet not from the social security fund. A new tax would have to be raised to pay for these other payments from out the socal security fund.


As to the new regulation, I never said it would be the silver bullet. I mentioned it was inacted and people were following through. Just because I site a piece of infomration does not mean I support it 100% or think it will resolve world hunger. This is you my friend putting words or expectation on my words that are not there.

As to the outsourcing, I do agree that every job lost is not good. This is technology and capability that is sent elsewhere.

Yet, companies like Toyota, Honda, GM and others have plants in multiple countries or continents, to adjust for the fluctuation of the currency. Therefor they can import or export depending upon market fluctuation. So, some jobs have come to the US to support this. Yet, to loose whole markets such as textiles is not good. 

I do not have the answers.

I do know there are no absolutes no 100% in this life for the jobs and economy. Hence, back to my original point, In my opinion (* wrong though you may thin it to be *), Michela Moore is a jerk and only out to make money. He does not care about the issues he promotes, only can he get credit, fame and money from it. Hence, not doing a follow up story in Flint. There is no money in supporting the big company, wihtout being considered a sell out. Yet, if he was truly after the truth, he would have done it. Once again my opinion, even though you think it is wrong.

 :asian:


----------



## Thesemindz (May 26, 2004)

Phoenix44 said:
			
		

> Yes.  The reason why Disney will not release Moore's new film is because their major assets are in Florida, and Disney is afraid that if it is unfavorable to the president, it will adversely affect their tax status in a state governed by Jeb Bush.  That is TERRIFYING to me.



Wow. That is frightening. Where did you get this information? Was this released in a Disney press release?


-Rob


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2004)

Rich: 

What you are describing is capitalism, an economic system. It has no interest in fairness, workers, rights, ethics, America, or anything else. It is a system for producing, accumulating, exchanging this thing called, "capital." Everything else is incidental--and the things you complain about are some of its side effects.

Cashiers do not make eight to ten times minimum wage, so the "math," you cite makes little sense to me. 

Looked at any of the stuff on what happens once CEOs start making more than twenty times what their lowest-paid workers make?

And again--since you never quite seem to respond--exactly how do you propose that hard-working people who happen to work in groceries survive, pay mortgages, feed their kids, handle college expenses and medical expenses, if they do not get paid a decent wage and they do not get benefits? What precisely do you suggest that they do?

American workers, and the middle class for that matter, slip a little further behind every year--as people work harder, commute more, have less access to care, lose out on a good education, etc. And, as the likes of our current President get richer and richer....

I mean, you didn't buy that "tax cut," lunacy, did you?

I recommend reading some E.P. Thompson, I.F. Stone, and Howard Zinn on the history of unions.

It's capitalism. Piling up money for the bosses is what capitalism does. It's how it works. Of course, lost in the bargain are tens of millions of Americans....


----------



## michaeledward (May 26, 2004)

Thesemindz said:
			
		

> Wow. That is frightening. Where did you get this information? Was this released in a Disney press release?
> 
> -Rob


Go to any Business Web Site and look at 'Recent News' for DIS. Here is one quote, from one article.

"Fahrenheit 9/11" had already whipped up an international media storm after the Walt Disney Co (DIS) barred its Miramax film unit from releasing such a politically polarising work in a U.S. election year. ​You could then also look at Mr. Moore's comments at his web site (www.michaelmoore.com).


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 26, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Rich:
> 
> What you are describing is capitalism, an economic system. It has no interest in fairness, workers, rights, ethics, America, or anything else. It is a system for producing, accumulating, exchanging this thing called, "capital." Everything else is incidental--and the things you complain about are some of its side effects.


And what is wrong with this system?

Should we be Communists? Where everyone gets the same? ON a real small scale such as a Commune I think this system would work. Everyone can benefit from the labors of the others and see it and know it. When it gets too large, it is too easy for the human factor and in natural greed to step in. Just my opinion.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Looked at any of the stuff on what happens once CEOs start making more than twenty times what their lowest-paid workers make?



I agree to a salary to the decision-making capability of the CEO's. I do not like the hidden bonuses and such that seem to always come out in their favor even when the company is not doing well. Once again, just because I make a comment about a local situation, you assume I am making a broad statement against all.  :idunno: 




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> American workers, and the middle class for that matter, slip a little further behind every year--as people work harder, commute more, have less access to care, lose out on a good education, etc. And, as the likes of our current President get richer and richer....



Ok, how do we fix this? I do not disagree. How do we fix it?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I mean, you didn't buy that "tax cut," lunacy, did you?



Tax Cut   , Yeah Sure, I got a tax cut all right. I am single, I saw maybe $800. And even if I saw $8,000, I would still ask where is the money coming from? Do we still not have a deficit and under-funded SS?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> I recommend reading some E.P. Thompson, I.F. Stone, and Howard Zinn on the history of unions.



I will check them out in the future.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> It's capitalism. Piling up money for the bosses is what capitalism does. It's how it works. Of course, lost in the bargain are tens of millions of Americans....



Communism did not work. Socialism? with France and Canada? Where certain parts of the economy are socialized? In Canada though, they vote for the benefit, and then vote down the tax increase to pay for it. Then the government goes ahead and raises the taxes anywise to help pay for it, because they believe it is a good idea.

This is a problem. It seems to me that everyone wants to have a free lunch and not pay for anything. You have to work or pay for it somehow. It is not free nor given out of thin air. Maybe education, would help. Assuming willing participants, for you can lead a horse to water, yet they will drink when and if they are ready.

Robert,

I said these things in my last post:


			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I have no problem with a fair wage. I have no problem someone getting what the market can provide.



I have no problem with someone making a fair wage to live off of. I do have a problem with cashier's making 8+ times other people. You say the "Math" does not make sense. Now do you understand why it did not make sense in Genesee County? Why it did not make sense to support further Union action for pay raises? A rebalance was required. It did occur. Many of the small business went out of business. The large chains closed down stores, and non-union people bought the stores and opened them 90 days later, while hiring n at non-union wages.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Cashiers do not make eight to ten times minimum wage, so the "math," you cite makes little sense to me.



Cashiers did make 8 times what others made in 1976 in Genesee county. This is the most extreme ratio, yet it did exist until the readjustment occurred.




			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And again--since you never quite seem to respond--exactly how do you propose that hard-working people who happen to work in groceries survive, pay mortgages, feed their kids, handle college expenses and medical expenses, if they do not get paid a decent wage and they do not get benefits? What precisely do you suggest that they do?



Robert: See above. I have no problem with people making a living. I did not come from money. One grand mother worked in the school district only after my grandfather broke his back falling 30 feet from a tree. The grand father maybe had 8th grade education. The parents of those grandparents were small dirt farmers. The other grandparents were farmers, and my grand mother was also a field-trained nurse who worked in the hospitals during the winter. This meant they had to leave the farm and live in a basement of other relatives just to get by. My Mother got a scholarship for one year in France, and took it. She then came back and went to a religious university as both grand parents were very religious. The school allowed for them to help work off and pay off over time their tuition. This is where she meets my father. My father was getting an education for being a dental technician in those days. It was his job to make the crowns and the false teeth, and plates, etc., ..., . He could not get a job in his home state. He came out to Michigan with his new bride. He moved to find work. Once here, he could not just get by alone. My mother would reupholster chairs and couches for extra money as they say to pay the bills. My mother would even trade her labor with starting doctors so they could get used equipment for their waiting room or tables, and she could recover them for exchange of services. Yes, it was funny to see that exchange occurring as a young child when others would pay cash, and instead they looked up numbers in a book for my family and me.

MY father left the dental business for two reason. The Auto manufacturers made more money, and also could get health benefits. Even with those health benefits, my mother still did her side jobs to help pay the bills including medical and food. My Mother later worked as a bus driver, and even was my own bus drive for school. Imagine the pain for most kids. I cared not. I always smiled and said yes, that is my mom!

Our vacations were going north to a campsite and camping for two weeks. We did not travel nor had lots of toys, yet I did not feel bad.

Later my Mother Died of Cancer over a three year period while I was in High school. This meant I had to step up and do more while in high school. I had to help my younger brother and my Dad. I had responsibilities to my family. I had jobs to help pay for my lunch money and or spending money.

In college I started out in U of M Flint not Ann Arbor, because I with a little help from my father could afford it. I later transferred to U of M Ann Arbor, and ran out of money real fast and changed majors and came back to U of M Flint. I graduated in 6 years because I had to work 40 to 60 hours a week to help pay for the college. I wanted it so I did it. I did not have new cars, nor  did I have designer clothes, nor all the toys, nor cash to spend. Yet, I made my choices.

I graduate, found a job, got married, and then later divorced. All based upon me. It was not someone else. I did not wait for someone to come along and give me something. I went out and found a way to do it myself, yes with some help from my family, as I stated. Yet, we were neither by far the worse off nor the best off. Yet, I seemed to be able to make a step up as people will say it, in the social standing, because now I am an engineer.

Yet, to get there, I got beat, and stabbed, and shot at, and worked late hours, ..., . All in the name of my goal and desire. I recognize that maybe not everyone can do what I did. Maybe they are not as lucky as I was, and may have been killed or serious hurt.

I have a close friend. Barely graduate high school. The woman he married just wanted to stay home and raise kids. They were and are some of the happiest people I know. They live in a small house, they rent, they have one car, that I gave them, until they can pay me. I do not expect payment. They have two kids, that call me Uncle. I buy them presents and toys for birthdays and holidays, yet nether child is hurting for cloths, food, toys, or even love. Yes, the mother now works, and he makes $14 an hour. Yes, it is difficult, sometimes they are late on phone bills or what have you. Yet, they do live and in my opinion raised a couple of nice kids. Could it be easier for them? Yes it could. With out just plain giving them something, I do not know how it could be done. Both of them are proud and happy people. They do not get upset with me and my house, or my convertible, or my truck. They are happy where they are.

My Brother has no degree and makes $65K a year writing software for a grocery store, for their database and ordering system. He taught himself how to code and went out and trained himself and found what he wanted.

I have another high school friend who did something similar. Except he makes $75k + (* More than me  *) with no degree. He is graduating this semester with a 4-year degree from the U of Phoenix. He worked his way into a position, works lots of hours because he is over his head, and then also got trained and school at the companies expense. I am happy for him. His mother never worked, except raise kids , and his father was a truck driver. It was not handed to him either.

I have another friend whose parents' own a small take out restaurant. He got some help just like I did going through school, and he paid for the rest by working. He worked in an outsource shop and went to school on their dime after his parents could no longer help him. He got a job making good money and then got his master's degree, and now makes even more money. All because he wanted it, and found a way to make it happen.

I have a few more friends, that are similar, yet I think you get the point.

We all wanted something, or were happy and did what was necessary.

So, please explain to me, how the little guy is to get a head? Some people do, others do not. I do not believe it is because of the system holding them back and or keeping them in their place. Once again, just my opinion, based upon my experiences.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Question on Bethlehem Steel. Did not the new company that bought them out have to provide for their retirement account? If not then was it a percentage on the dollar, or nothing at all?



Could you point me in the right direction here.

You state I do not answer you. I think I do. Yet, you do not answer me, or at least I do not see it.



			
				Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> As to Social Security, I agree that it looks bad. Could we agree that people who never paid in should not pull out? Can we agree that it should be used as supplement in retirement, and not for disabilities? Those disabilities may deserve to be compensated by our society, yet not from the social security fund. A new tax would have to be raised to pay for these other payments from out the social security fund.
> :asian:



Any Comments about the Monster Social Security?


----------



## MisterMike (May 26, 2004)

And the alternative to Capitalism issss???????


----------



## Cruentus (May 26, 2004)

2 comments:

The alternative to capitalism is..........

Something that hasn't been invented yet, I believe. I think that we need to think outside of the box. The belief seems to be, "Capitalism ain't perfect, but it is better then the alternatives out there!" The problem is (outside of the fact that most who say that know very little about the alternatives) that capitalism in our current system is NOT working. Not by itself. Money continues to float to the top, and the top gets smaller and smaller in terms of who's up there. We have violated certian rules that would make capitalism work, such as the rule of "healthy competition." "Capitalism" under are current system really means "oligarchy" and "faciest republic." "Capitalism" at the rate we are going will be the demise of our country. So, we need an alternative, and real soon.

But, the alternative doesn't have to be "communism" or "socialism" or "totalitarianism" or any other preconcieved notion. I think we need to think outside the box. I'd like to see a mix, a sort of "social-capitalist-libritarianism" if you will. I think that laws that regulate the people should be as libritarian as possible. I think that business should be capitalist, and should be interested in making money, but that Government should protect us from corporate oligarchies who violate the capitalistic ideals by fixing the competition for themselves. I think that Government should protect us from businesses hurting us and where we live, rather then protecting us from ourselves, while letting business do whatever they want. I think that the government should take an interest in society (but not in a regulatory sense), and should standardize things like living wages and healthcare.

None of this is completely communist or socialist, but it isn't completely libertarianism or capitalism either.

None of this can happened overnight, but some of it needs to start happening real soon. Otherwise, we as people of this great nation will completely lose our control to a social elite, and we will become slaves for them. We are a lot closer to this then most recognize, I believe.

The other thing that I need to address is the idea of, "I came from nothing and I worked my *** off to get to where I am. Why should I give freebee's to someone who isn't willing to do the same!? I know people who are in poverty, and they work hard and are handling it just fine!" True, there are some that are simply just lazy. But, opportunity doesn't knock on everyones door. And the poorer your are, and less of a "fit" you are to what would be considered "social elite," the less opportunities you'll find. Some just don't get the opportunities, become psychologically defeated, and never "make it." Then you look at them on the street or in their trashed home while they live off wealfare and think, "If only they weren't so lazy!" The thought doesn't occur to most that if you had been defeated as much as that person has, then maybe you'd be just as lazy too.

Talent, skill, intelligence, and personal drive is worth nothing without opportunity. Some who worked very hard to get to where they are forget that it took opportunity to get them there. Yet, opportunities are more and more being "fixed," meaning less and less for the average person. 

It is true, you may have worked hard and overcome a lot to get where you are. But, shouldn't things be getting easier for the american family rather then harder? The illusion is that things are getting easier, but this is absolutely not the case. The living wage is less every year. The average family could afford the american dream with one parent working, now it takes 2. How some of you are so brainwashed that you don't see that this is a problem is beyond me. 

I want there to be more opportunities for our kids, not less. I want it to be easier for our kids to succeed, not more difficult. I think we should be working towards this ideal. People whould not have to bust *** and cut throats to "make it," no matter how noble it sounds.

Just my take on things related to the conversation; not directed at anyone in particular.
 :asian:


----------



## MisterMike (May 26, 2004)

Thanks Paul. I think Capitalism can work but there are checks needed to protect things like the worker, the consumer, the environment, competition. But I do not think these are faults of Capitalism, just the people involved.


----------



## Cruentus (May 26, 2004)

MisterMike said:
			
		

> Thanks Paul. I think Capitalism can work but there are checks needed to protect things like the worker, the consumer, the environment, competition. But I do not think these are faults of Capitalism, just the people involved.



 :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (May 26, 2004)

> I think Capitalism can work but there are checks needed to protect things like the worker, the consumer, the environment, competition. But I do not think these are faults of Capitalism, just the people involved.



Hrmmmmm....

I think a useful analogy would be comparing our current economic problems to the symptoms of a disease. So you've taken care of the symptoms, no more coughing. Now what?? The disease is still there, and it can all come back.

The "disease", of course, is what is causing all these external, socioeconomic problems in the first place. Well, its all pretty ideological --- not enough people in world actually give a damn. There's not enough people operating from a universal, worldcentric circle of care --- they only care about them and what's theirs.

It'd be liking trying to have separation of church and state in a country where the vast majority of the people believe in a sociocentric theocracy. The outward, social forms will end up dead-ending --- because they aren't culturally supported by the values of the people.

As long as people only give a damn about them and what's theirs --- this stuff is gonna fail. Period.

Laterz.


----------



## Phoenix44 (May 26, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> 2 comments:
> 
> "Capitalism" under are current system really means "oligarchy" and "faciest republic."


Tulisan is dead right.  It's not that capitalism is bad, it's that we no longer have capitalism in the US.  We are approaching facism, where government and big business are inseparable, and the rest of us don't stand a chance.

Our President comes from the oil industry (Bush Energy), and is a life long friend of the Saud family of Saudi Arabia.  Our Vice President still draws $1M/year from his former employer, Halliburton, one of the major beneficiaries of OUR tax money in Iraq.  Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton, who sets environmental policy, was a lobbyist for loggers, miners, ranchers, and land developers.  Secretary of Agriculture Anne Veneman, who sets food safety policy, was on the Board of Directors of Calgene, a biotech division of Monsanto, which produces bio-engineered foods and opposes food labeling. Secretary of  Health & Human Services Tommy Thompson has corporate connections to Merck Pharmaceuticals, Abbott Pharmaceuticals, and the Philip Morris Corporation.  And the list goes on and on.

Do you think these people are looking out for OUR benefit? WAKE UP AMERICA!!!


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 26, 2004)

Just to see if'n I can't tick off EVERYBODY...

The argument that capitalism would work fine if it just had a few checks and balances is nifty. That's what I'd argue for: a socialist economy, "mixed," with free enterprise at one level, but a managed economy for all the large-scale stuff. 

The problem with acheiving such an economy is that it is fundamentally contrary to the essential nature of capitalism--which, simply put, is an economic system that has evolved around the notion, "greed is good." In capitalist economies, the logic is that human nature and desire drive one person against another, that the best way to cut down on direct violence is to  introduce a mediating agent--capital--and that it should be a completely-unlimited case of dog-eat-dog after that. There are no limits whatsoever--no moral, ethical, religious, familial, social limits whatsoever--to that competition.

In the past, hangovers from previous eras--the notion of benign feudalism, for example, which persists in the idea that a good owner takes care of His  people; the notion of religion, which says radix malorum est cupiditas--puts some checks on the economic logic. Those checks are in the process of disappearing: what we are left with is "pure," economic competition.

Marx, in brief, was absolutely right in terms of his analysis of the nature of capitalist society. It is  why there's all the complaining about the disappearance of values, religion, the family, America, etc.--in capitalist society, everything that is solid melts into air," which is to say that it is rewriten/recoded in the terms of capital, of money in all its forms. Nothing--nothing else at all--survives, if capitalism is taken to its logical limit. Marx noted the, "werewolf hunger of capitalism for  blood;" if he had had the terminology, he  would've called capitalism a, "retrovirus," because the system simply translates everything into its own genetic language. 

If you think capitalism is more, or that capitalism cares about people, or  that capitalism cares about America, you do not understand capitalism. You also aren't noticing reality, because presently what we see is the disappearance of all sorts of, "American values," because the economic system we've created is recoding all of them. But, hell, you can get this from at least twenty-two Springsteen songs.

The conspiracy theories about Big Corporations and the CIA, the Illuminati, Skull and Bones, Area 51, Bush and the Arabs, whatever, are to my mind simply smokescreens--or, better, surface phenomena. The notions of "good," capitalism, at best, can only reflect wishful  thinking and occasional decencies oln the parts of individual compaanies and bosses. If things keep going as they are, these will pretty much be washed away.

Rich, I'm sorry, but if you look back at the biography you wrote--especially if you consider the fact that globally speaking, you and I are among the most privileged--you'll see exactly what I'm talking about here. The system of the economy simply is not interested in you, me, or anybody else, except as workers and consumers and administrators. 

And MM, well, this should produce a rant. Fine. 1. Problem with the Soviet Union is that after the first ten years, they slumped into a fascist bureaucracy stacked on top of a badly-managed economy--the worst of both worlds. 2. The question is whether or not Marx's ideas lead to horrors like Stalin inevitably--which is why analyses of "race," and, "gender," become important, because one of those essential flaws seems to center around white  boy thinking. 3. For Marx, capitalism will eventually evolve into something better, just as feudalism evolved into something better.

But  if anybody thinks that a few rules and regs and good thoughts and church atendances and uncovering of alien astronauts will fix the Ststem or Bring the System Down, they're dreamin'.


----------



## Cruentus (May 26, 2004)

Great, Robert, now I'm ticked off! Just kidding.

I actually don't disagree with what you just wrote.

I am not convinced that Marx's communist answer is "the answer," but I agree with his premise that Capitalism will (or at least "should") evolve into something better.

I do think that adding a social conscience to Capitalism would change it as we know it, which is not a bad thing, IMHO.


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 26, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Rich, I'm sorry, but if you look back at the biography you wrote--especially if you consider the fact that globally speaking, you and I are among the most privileged--you'll see exactly what I'm talking about here. The system of the economy simply is not interested in you, me, or anybody else, except as workers and consumers and administrators.



Robert,

I never said I was not one of the lucky ones now.

I also never said it was my right or someone else's to deny them a fair wage.

And you are correct, the system does not care about the individual. Yet, I do not see another system out there that does care about the individual. Still looking.

Society in general worries about the big picture, such as survival and standard of living and not about Rich or Robert. Yet, on a large scale nation wide or planet wide, I cannot think of a system that would be individual based, as long as there was more than one individual.

 :asian:


----------



## heretic888 (May 27, 2004)

Hrmmmm....

Robert's put in some very interesting thoughts, many of which I am inclined to by sympathetic with, if not flat-out agree with.

However, I would disagree with one characterization: Namely, capitalism being the actual _cause_ of all this nastiness. That'd be like saying widespread agrarianism was the sole cause of patriarchal religion and imperialistic slavery --- it is but a half-truth, a partial truth. 

A more comprehensive view would see many factors taking root here, both internal (culture) and external (society). I personally believe the "values system" and the "economic system", while distinct in some respects, ultimately co-create one another --- we simply wouldn't have "our capitalism" if it weren't for "our values". And vice-versa.

Marx was right in the sense that the socioeconomic forms of production greatly _influence_ forms of cultural organization and worldview. He was wrong, in my opinion, in trying to reduce all cultural values and worldviews as nothing _but_ a result of those forms of production. Reductionism is just plain silly.

My personal opinion is that "our capitalism" is the symptom of what could be called a much more subtle, and pervasive, disease. It is the not the disease itself.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 28, 2004)

In way capitolism relfects biology.  The flow of money is directly interchangable with energy in ecologic equations that predict the behavior of animal populations.  With this being said, can you change a system to something _unnatural_?  I struggle with this...


----------



## Cruentus (May 28, 2004)

Thought this might be of interest...

_Friends,

Hello from Cannes! Im sure by now many of you have heard the good newsFahrenheit 9/11 has won the top prize at the Cannes Film Festival. It is the first time in nearly 50 years a documentary has won the Palme dOr (the Golden Palm).

Myself and twenty-six members of our crew are here in Cannes and we are in a state of shock. None of us expected this. First came the critics reviews on Monday (The New York Times called it my best film ever), then the audience reaction at our premiere (a 20-minute standing ovation, a new all-time record for the festival), the International Federation of Film Critics Award on Friday, and then the best film prize last night. Its all been an incredible week for us and I cant wait to get back home and show you all this wonderfully powerful film weve made.

No, we still dont have a distributor in America as I write this but after winning the worlds top film prize Id give it about one more day (if that) before we have someone brave enough (and smart enough) to show Americans what the world can already see (Albania, this week, became the final countryother than the U.S.to sign on with a distributor).

I am still hoping for a July release (4th of July weekend?) both in the U.S. and around the world.

I fully expect the right wing and the Republican Party to come at me and this film with everything theyve got. They will try, as they have unsuccessfully in the past, to attack me personally because they cannot win the debate on the issues the film raisesnamely, that they are a pack of liars and the American people are on to them. And, if the early screenings of Fahrenheit 9/11 are any indication, those who see this movie will never view the Bush administration in the same way again. Even if you already cant stomach George W. Bush & Co., I think this movie will take you to places you havent gone before, with laughter and with tears.

I will let you all knowas soon as we have a distributorthe date the film is opening. Until then, check out some of the articles that have been written, and check out the awards ceremony from Cannes.

Thanks everyone for your support.

Yours,
Michael Moore
mmflint@aol.com
www.michaelmoore.com

P.S. When you hear the wackos on Fox News and elsewhere refer to this prize as coming from the French, please know that of the nine members of the Festival jury, only ONE was French. Nearly half the jury (four) were Americans and the President of the jury was an American (Quentin Tarantino). But this fact wont stop the OReillys or the Lenos or the Limbaughs from attacking the French and me because, well, thats how their simple minds function.

- From www.michaelmoore.com
_ 

Go ahead....I'll be under my desk, hiding from the s**tstorm.  :toilclaw:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 28, 2004)

Again, Marx is not responsible for the reductionism and monotony of capitalism. He's simply analyzing what's there.

And it's remarkable to see folks grounding their justiciation for an artificial--we made it--economic system on a fantasy of biology. Of course, it's remarkable mainly because that's precisely what social Darwinism does.


----------



## heretic888 (May 28, 2004)

> Again, Marx is not responsible for the reductionism and monotony of capitalism. He's simply analyzing what's there.



Even assuming his criticisms of capitalism are true, that is by no means all the 'reductionism' that he is culpable of.

"Religion is the opiate of the masses", anyone??

Marx's problem, again, was that he thought the slice of the pizza that he got was the whole damn pie. All of society is not simply variatons of socioeconomic modes of production, not even in capitalistic societies. Freud tended to be guilty of this, too, but he reduced all of human culture to infantile instinct-drives instead.

Cultural worldviews and social productions co-create one another. Neither exist in complete isolation.

Laterz.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 28, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And it's remarkable to see folks grounding their justiciation for an artificial--we made it--economic system on a fantasy of biology. Of course, it's remarkable mainly because that's precisely what social Darwinism does.



How is something that humans make artificial?  Aren't we part of nature?  Don't we suscribe to the same rules?  Can humans step in and out of the universe and violate its laws?  No.  All I am saying is that capitolism reflects things that happen in nature - especially the flow the energy in populations.  Furthermore, it just might be an unconscious collective reflection of said natural laws.  

A non mathmatical example...

*Biologic Laws of Competition*
1.  Scarce resources lead to Competition.
2.  Competition limits a species use of resources.
3.  Competition without division of resources leads to extinction.

Can you see the parellels?  Is biology telling us something about capitolism that we don't want to hear?

upnorthkyosa


----------



## heretic888 (May 28, 2004)

*Can you see the parellels? Is biology telling us something about capitolism that we don't want to hear?*

Perhaps. But, also remember the great thing about being human is, well, being human. 

Unlike our less-aware brethren species, we can to a very substantial degree detach ourselves from biological drives, instincts, and impulses. There are limitations to this, of course, but its still something we do on a regular basis --- which is why every horny dude doesn't go raping every chica he comes across on the street.

Territorial tribalism and ethnocentrism are, ultimately, carry-overs from millions of years of animal evolution. Its part of who we are, and we cannot deny this. Ultimately, however, it is the purpose of humanity to encompass a deeper vision and not just go "tough ****" whenever bad things happen to "the other".

Just look up "humanity" in the dictionary (as in the sense "have some humanity"), and this becomes readily apparent.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 28, 2004)

heretic888 said:
			
		

> Unlike our less-aware brethren species, we can to a very substantial degree detach ourselves from biological drives, instincts, and impulses.



I'm not so sure about this.  There are rules and then there are rules.  The rules of nature always apply.  The real world exists regardless of any post-modern convolutions.  Primate society is filled with tons of ideosyncratic details.  The reason that a bunch of horney dudes can resists the delectable bared flesh of beautiful females in their midsts is because we evolved a breeding strategy that is interlaced with behavioral restraints.  This happened because controls on the populations of humans needed to be established in order to meet the competition conditions I posted above.  

Heretic888, I'm not sure if there is any situation in the human experience that you couldn't link back to nature.  This conversation could require a thread of its own...


----------



## Rich Parsons (May 28, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Thought this might be of interest...
> 
> _Friends,
> 
> ...



To have taken the high road, it would have been nice to have seen the same investigation of the possible candidates for the election as well.

Once again, my idea of propaganda. Now I am not a Bush fan, I am just a non-fan for Micheal Moore.



 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2004)

Again--sorry, fundamental misunderstanding of Marx, fundamental misunderstanding of Freud.

Beyond the fact that neither is responsible for what capitalism and patriarchy have made of the world (though certainly both get used to justify capitalism and patriarchy)--it is capital that simplifies, not capital's analyst.

The basic pattern can be seen in what old Karl says about wages: they show the human being, in all their complexity, social relation, history, what-have-you, reduced to a certain measure of money per hour. That's not Marx's fantasy, as anybody who thinks about what they think about their jobs knows perfectly well. Mindless, repetitive work, often to produce--what? something of real value? or just profit for someone else? What do you think, "Take This Job and Shove It," is all about? We're talking about transforming human beings into meat machines.

Look through these threads, and consider discussions of morality and of martial arts. How often do they revolve around ideas like profit, exchange, looking out for yourself, efficiency, the simplification of history, etc?

To me, those are expressive of capitalist ideology. They represent grand simplifications--closely related to the one Marx identified as the hallmark of the modern era--in which all the messy complexities are swept away in favor of One Big Idea. You might as well be talking about machines.

What I do agree with is something said on this page: or, to quote my dev. psych teacher, Elizabeth Bates, "Yeah, but the whole point of being human is that you are  NOT a slave to your biology."

Robert Ardrey, B.F. Skinner: dopes.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What I do agree with is something said on this page: or, to quote my dev. psych teacher, Elizabeth Bates, "Yeah, but the whole point of being human is that you are  NOT a slave to your biology."



Robert, how does one transcend their biology?  What does this look like?  This is a pseudo-spiritual concept that has little meaning unless you can describe it.  Otherwise you ARE a slave to your biology...why does this concept fill people with dread?  Is it because it justifies the negative aspects of capitolism as part of a natural system or is it something else?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2004)

Um...doesn't it seem that there's a teensy bit of a contradiction in condemming Marx for reducing everything to the economic, and then claiming that human beings can be reduced to their biology? 

Nothing, "pseudo-spiritual," about it at all. Human beings have language, culture, history, art, marriage, etc. These are not biological categories. 

If you're alive, you've probably already transcended biology: in a, "state of nature," (and we have no record at all of human beings' life in any such state), you'd probably be dead by now. I'd probably have died several years ago, of old age. There wouldn't be farms in the Imperial Valley out here in California.


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Um...doesn't it seem that there's a teensy bit of a contradiction in condemming Marx for reducing everything to the economic, and then claiming that human beings can be reduced to their biology?



I think you are confusing posts between myself and Heretic888.  I would reduce things to economic/biologic levels, though.  Check this thread...

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=14637



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Nothing, "pseudo-spiritual," about it at all. Human beings have language, culture, history, art, marriage, etc. These are not biological categories.



Are these so unique?  According to the Drake Equation there are at least 10,000 other intelligent civilizations in this galaxy alone.  I'm sure all of those civilizations have language, culture, history, art, marriage, ect...

Could you explain how these things are NOT biological?  Especially since they are originated by a biologic organism.



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> If you're alive, you've probably already transcended biology: in a, "state of nature," (and we have no record at all of human beings' life in any such state), you'd probably be dead by now. I'd probably have died several years ago, of old age. There wouldn't be farms in the Imperial Valley out here in California.



If anything connects homo sapians to nature it is technology.  The evolution of technology directly parallels the evolution of the human brain.  There is nothing transcendant about technology.  The universe is a large place, considering this, are our creations so unique?


----------



## rmcrobertson (May 29, 2004)

Sorry about the post confusion. 

However, you are collapsing categories together, and the Drake equation (as Sagan and Shklovskii pointed out, it's all in how you set the values) isn't going to help that. Nor do I see how, "the evolution of technology directly parallels the evolution of the human brain," except in the most trivial sense that the human brain evolved to a certain point, then we started using tools and fire. Correlation doesn't imply causation, and all that...

And anyways, the human brain doesn't seem to have evolved much over the last twenty millenia--and our culture, technology, language, etc., all sure have.

What's the reason for making it all a matter of biology, anyway?


----------



## Makalakumu (May 29, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry about the post confusion.
> 
> However, you are collapsing categories together, and the Drake equation (as Sagan and Shklovskii pointed out, it's all in how you set the values) isn't going to help that. Nor do I see how, "the evolution of technology directly parallels the evolution of the human brain," except in the most trivial sense that the human brain evolved to a certain point, then we started using tools and fire. Correlation doesn't imply causation, and all that...



Unless you have data to back the assertion up.  Take a look at the progression of morphologic characteristics stretching back to homo ergaster and you'll see that as soon as tools pop into the picture, brain size explodes.  As social organization becomes more advanced, there is an even larger explosion.  The step from technology to biology cannot be made in one giant leap.  There are little steps that happen along the way.  For instance, everytime we learn something, we build connections in the gray matter in our skulls.  The more gray matter, the more connections, the more we can learn, the more complex our behavior becomes.  Assumption, yes, but not blind.

The Drake equation is an estimation.  There could be more and their could be less.  With billions and billions of galaxies in our visible _universe _ alone, it doesn't matter much.  My usage of it only illustrates the point that none of the things we do are not unique.  Surely there is some bug eyed monster out there how just might have evolved a complex way of communication...like pheremone poetry...



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> And anyways, the human brain doesn't seem to have evolved much over the last twenty millenia--and our culture, technology, language, etc., all sure have.



Yes it has.  _Homo Sapians_ is the species that arose about 60,000 years ago.  _Homo Sapians Sapians_ is the species that evolved about 10,000 years ago.  The sub-species taxon was added to reflect changes in brain volume.  From then on not enough time has passed to see any more morphologic changes though.  Changes inside the brain have been recorded, though.  New connections can be observed in todays children that would not be seen in a scan our mine or your brain.  As soon as the gray matter that exists in skulls reaches is maximum connection density then we will see another explosion in brain size.  

How long will this take?  I don't know.  I would say that our current expansion of technology creates a short time table.  For instance, in Newton's day it was possible to have a working knowledge that spanned the bredth of human understanding.  These days, that goal would be impossible.  How many of you out there know how to do Tensor Calculus?



			
				rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> What's the reason for making it all a matter of biology, anyway?



Biology, more then anything else, truly explains who we are.  One of the reasons there is no coherent theory that ties social sciences together is because of the insertion of these pseudo-religious principals into their postulations.  As long as people cling to this position that "we are more then what we are made of" nothing but confusion will follow.  No one will ever be able to put their finger on the _more _ and agree on what they see.  Where as we can see a strand of DNA and analyze it (and maybe argue for a while) and eventually see what it says about who we are.

Seriously, take a look at the thread I posted before.  I'm going to post this there too.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 15, 2004)

With all due respect, from a newbie in this forum to someone who has been here a long time, upnorthkyosa, I find that your "everything is biology and that's that" explanations to be not arguments at all about biology or how it affects us, but to be essentially tautological arguments that "explain" nothing.

Your view on biology = capitalism is, truly, exactly what lead to Social Darwinism.  And Social Darwinism is a system...a social system implemented by or rejected by people... that I consciously reject, and I think most people reject.  Your concept of biology "explaining" things takes only competition into account.  Most biological/ evolutionary models now try to account for things like *group* selection as well as selection on the individual level, as well as things like cooperation and altruism.  Do I think that competition isn't important?  Of course it is.  But it is not the only force in biological systems.  And as humans who think about what social systems they put into place, we can choose a different system if that is what we want, or think would work best.  

And just as an aside, I am thoroughly amused to see that virtually all examples of competition given are of men competing for women.  Sexual selection is something related, but one of the kinds of competition.  As an example of competition, I would probably pick foraging or fighting for food first.  But that's probably my personal bias in my own example. 



> and you'll see that as soon as tools pop into the picture, brain size explodes.


Again, not a causation - a correlation.  What else was going on when tools were around?  A simple confounding variable, and we do not know.



> From then on not enough time has passed to see any more morphologic changes though. Changes inside the brain have been recorded, though. New connections can be observed in todays children that would not be seen in a scan our mine or your brain.


The first part, I completely agree with you.  We have not been around long enough to see significant evolutionary changes.  

The second part - so what if our children have different kinds of connections?  To me that simply means that they live in a different kind of environment than you or I did when growing up, and that they may, oh, be processing more visually than someone years ago, who may have learned more material aurally.  Just an example.  I agree that as we compile more data about the world, there is more kids can learn.  But this is *can* learn.  That does not mean that kids today are super-brilliant sponges that absorb everything there is to learn.  To me, changes in brain connectivity may mean individual "adaptions" and flexibility to local environments.



> As long as people cling to this position that "we are more then what we are made of" nothing but confusion will follow. No one will ever be able to put their finger on the _more _and agree on what they see. Where as we can see a strand of DNA and analyze it (and maybe argue for a while) and eventually see what it says about who we are.


(laughing) I am fortunate enough to train with some of the best molecular biologists and geneticists in the country.  None of them would agree with this statement.  Your DNA, although you can look at it (in a way), and measure it, and materially experience it (which seems to be the basis of your definition of something "real" or "biological", or perhaps I am wrong)...and although it is certainly IMPORTANT in the development of the person... is also certainly NOT the end all and be all of what a person is.  If so, explain to me why only 50% of identical twins, whose identical twin develops Schizophrenia, and who therefore have the exact same biological underpinnings for Schizophrenia, actually develop the disease themselves.  If biology were all we were, all of those genetically identical doubles should without a doubt develop the disease.



> No one will ever be able to put their finger on the _more _and agree on what they see.


  As someone with extensive training in multiple academic fields, I am completely surprised by your thumbing your nose at all social sciences.  Whether *you* agree with them or not, scientists are attempting to (and are) come to agreements on many part of the "more" and figure out what is going on.  

Anyways, that aside.

Yes, Moore has an opinion in his documentaries - who doesn't?  I still suggest that people watch the film before going off on how it's not based in fact at all.  I haven't seen it yet, but I hope to, so I can join in the discussion of the points made or scenes shown in the film.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 17, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> Micheal Moore is a total Jerk.




Rich,

I agree with you...he is a jerk.  I'm going to go see it, though.  

I refused to see his "Bowling For Columbine" based on critiques I'd read of it (I am very pro-gun).  My wife saw it, and I started arguing with her about it.  I suddenly felt foolish because I was arguing about a film that I hadn't seen...which goes against the grain of what I believe in.

I'll see this latest and then read the critiques and mull everything over.  Then I think I'll go get "Bowling" and see it for the same reason, and re-read the critques of that one.  I have yet to see "The Passion of the Christ"....and I've read many of the critiques.  I have no good reason for not seeing this last one.  Given the controversy of all three films, I owe it to myself to see them.

To speak with any objectivity...or for that matter, measured subjectivity of a film/book, I ought to see/read them before I pass judgement on them.  This isn't just being fair to the director/author.  Moreover it is being fair to ME, as I am better armed to give argument either for or against the work in question.

Afterwards, I'll probably still think Moore is a jerk.  I actually think he is far worse than that...but there are young people that read this forum.  Thus I will refrain from honest assessment.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 17, 2004)

I find it interesting to see comparisons drawn between 'Farenheit 911', 'Bowling for Columbine', and 'The Passion of the Christ'.

Now ... how far you accept the label 'documentary' is a viable discussion. Some have stated they think Michael Moore is more about 'propaganda' (I am paraphrasing). But I don't think we should even begin to put Mel Gibson's film in the same category.

If you were just saying that you formed an opinion of 'The Passion' based on comments by reviewers ... and that is your argument, then I understand. 

I do think that most know how the 'Passion' ends .... while 'Columbine' reaches far fewer conclusions. I don't know what 'Farenheit' is going to tell us. (well, actually I have a pretty good idea because I do try to keep myself informed - links between Hussein and al Qaeda ... {chuckle})

Mike


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 17, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> Rich,
> 
> I agree with you...he is a jerk.  I'm going to go see it, though.
> 
> ...



Movie critics rarely give an accurate assessment of documentaries, whether Moore's or anyone elses. They aren't used to giving an intellectual opinion at all. I'd imagine this has to do with the difficulty of making the transition between talking about the kooky antics in the college-frat movie "Van Wilder" or the zany humor in "Mean Girls," then go to "serious" Documentary film. It just doesn't work well. I find that critics, whether giving positive reviews or negative ones, rarely give an educated viewpoint, and often miss the point of the documentary all together.

Proof is that "Bowling for Columbine," if you paid attention to the film, was not really "anti-gun." At least, that wasn't the point of the film, regardless of some of the seemingly anti-gun parts. The point of the film was that due to a violent past, capitalistic consumerism, and the media's fascination with sensationalism, we have created a "culture of violence" in this country; a society that could facilitate an incident like the Columbine shooting. The point is actually pretty brilliant. Taking away guns is never offered as a solution to the problem in the film. In fact, he rebuttles the idea that guns may be the cause. There are many causes, ranging from our history of violence to consumerism and sensationalism, but guns are not offered up as one of those causes.

Whether you hate Moore, think he is a dick, or whatever (met him, and he was actually pretty nice to me, but that was just my one isolated experience), Bowling for Columbine was brilliantly done. And, I'll tell you what, I can't say that about "Roger and Me" or his other works. So, even if you dislike Moore, I suggest seeing Bowling for C.

Farenhiet 911 I think will be even better then Bowling for C. Since 9-11, I have been following all the obscure news blurps and proofs that have been hidden from regular americans. Things ranging from Bush's Bin Laden family connection, to the patriot act and other policies that have been pushed through by this administration that are in violation of our freedoms. Anyways, I already have a base knowledge of what this film is going to cover, so I am interested in hearing his thesis.

So...in spirit of the new film, and to utterly annoy his critiques (lol), I'll be posting here daily to countdown til opening day!

 :uhyeah:


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 17, 2004)

8 days til fahrenheit....


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 17, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> 8 days til fahrenheit....


And the real B!+CH about that, is June 25 - 26 - 27 is the local Trout Unlimited chapter's Alder Hatch fishing trip. 

When the movie comes out ... I will be waist deep in the Andrascoggin river, where the Alder fly hatch is supposed to be so thick you can't see the leaves on the trees and bushes, with nary a theater in sight.

The fishing can't wait however ... if we continue on the path which Bush has placed us, soon these fisheries may be gone.

so ... 11 Days for Me


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 17, 2004)

> Proof is that "Bowling for Columbine," if you paid attention to the film, was not really "anti-gun." At least, that wasn't the point of the film, regardless of some of the seemingly anti-gun parts. The point of the film was that due to a violent past, capitalistic consumerism, and the media's fascination with sensationalism, we have created a "culture of violence" in this country; a society that could facilitate an incident like the Columbine shooting. The point is actually pretty brilliant.


Good point. I think people came away with an "anti-gun" message in part because of Moore going after Charlton Heston. I was rooting for Moore, not because I think Heston is evil, but in the film it details how, after every school shooting, the NRA and Heston showed up in town immediately afterwards to hold pro-gun rallies. While people were just beginning to mourn. Poor taste, I think. Poor taste.



> Now ... how far you accept the label 'documentary' is a viable discussion. Some have stated they think Michael Moore is more about 'propaganda' (I am paraphrasing). But I don't think we should even begin to put Mel Gibson's film in the same category.


True - Moore's films are documentaries. The Passion of the Christ was not. Did he take artistic license with some things? Sure. Was it controversial? Sure. Did some love it and some hate it? Sure, sure. 

Like I said, there will always be some sort of slant in a film - even in the way the film is edited and shot, there will be bias in what the director wants to show. 

Again, I think whether you like Moore's bias or hate it, you should see a film before you critique it. And if you *do* hate it, you will be able to intimately critique it after watching it.

If you don't want to pay to see the movie, you could always sneak in or pirate it or watch it at a friend's house when they rent it, but don't use that as a reason.

ETA: (I missed this!)



> When the movie comes out ... I will be waist deep in the Andrascoggin river, where the Alder fly hatch is supposed to be so thick you can't see the leaves on the trees and bushes, with nary a theater in sight.
> 
> The fishing can't wait however ... if we continue on the path which Bush has placed us, soon these fisheries may be gone.
> 
> so ... 11 Days for Me


That is sad but true about the fisheries - enjoy the fishing!  That sounds wonderful, very peaceful.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 17, 2004)

michaeledward said:
			
		

> I find it interesting to see comparisons drawn between 'Farenheit 911', 'Bowling for Columbine', and 'The Passion of the Christ'.
> 
> Now ... how far you accept the label 'documentary' is a viable discussion. Some have stated they think Michael Moore is more about 'propaganda' (I am paraphrasing). But I don't think we should even begin to put Mel Gibson's film in the same category.
> 
> ...



Mike,

I've formed no opinion of "The Passion".  

Nowhere in my post do I indicate, in any way, that I had formed an opinion of the movie based on the reviews I had read.  Nor did I state that I thought it was a documentary.  The word "documentary" doesn't appear in the post.

I lumped it with Moore's films because all three are controversial.  I didn't compare them.  They're hardly of the same genre.



Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 17, 2004)

hardheadjarhead said:
			
		

> I didn't compare them. They're hardly of the same genre.


Got it ... which is why I started my comments with "I find it interesting". 

Of all the things I might lump together with 'Bowling for Columbine' and 'Farenheit 911' ... I was thinking 'The Passion of the Christ' would be way ... WAY .... *WAY *down the list.

I don't think I was making a judgement one way or the other about your statement.

Anyhow ... I did make a judgement about 'Passion' based on the reviews. I definately do not want to pay money to see someone beaten and abused to death. ... and I was pretty sure there wasn't a surprise ending.

Mike


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 18, 2004)

Sorry, Mike...I was a little grumpy when I posted that.  I probably fired off a little too harshly.

I'm sitting here with staples in my knee having just had an ACL reconstruction.  When I wrote that, the pain meds were wearing off.


Regards,


Steve


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 18, 2004)

Not a problem at all. ... I can see that my post could also have looked a bit testy ... and I can't blame that on pain medication. Cheers Mate


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 18, 2004)

Guess what?

7 days and counting!!


----------



## jeffbeish (Jun 18, 2004)

>>>*LINK EDITED<<<*http://www.drudgereport.com/jp.htm

Moore is the son of Adolf Hitler








*MOD NOTE: Link removed due to explicit nature of content*


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 18, 2004)

> Moore is the son of Adolf Hitler


lmao


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 18, 2004)

jeffbeish said:
			
		

> >>>*LINK EDITED<<<*
> 
> Moore is the son of Adolf Hitler


You know .. that link is in extremely poor taste.

And

It has little to do with Michael Moore.


----------



## hardheadjarhead (Jun 18, 2004)

Uh, Jeff...Adolf Hitler was RIGHT WING.  Look it up.  Last I checked, Moore was a tad to the left.

You seem to be getting a LOT of your links yanked by the mods.  Remember there are kids that read M.T.  


Regards,


Steve


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 21, 2004)

Oopps...I almost forgot.

6....5.....4 days left!

 :boing2:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 21, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Oopps...I almost forgot.
> 
> 6....5.....4 days left!
> 
> :boing2:



I guess I need to go find something else to do Friday


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 21, 2004)

Just for the sheer hell of it:

1. "Moore is a jerk." Oh, really. Have you met? How do you happen to know this? Did he kick your dog, your cat, your kid? It's quite common to make these assumptions about personality when we disagree, especially about serious issues--I tend to feel that Ronald Reagan was a creep, for example--but it isn't rational, and it very likely isn't accurate. 

2. He's playing a character--don't let the, "cinema verite," quality of his films fool you. It's a construct, not a person. 

3. You're offended by what he seems to have to say? Fine. I'm offended by the fact that I can flip on the radio every day of the week and hear Michael Savage spout bile, or Rush Limbaugh personally insult people with whom he disagrees, and the whole sick crew of 'em attack their fellow Americans' decency and patriotism simply because they disagree with their political and intellectual stands. I'm angered by the fact that I can flip on the radio and hear these bozos call for various forms of violence against other human beings--and get paid very well for it, too, thank you. I'm even pissed off by the fact that I can flip on the TV and see the likes of Bill O'Reilly do pretty much the same, a little more politely, intelligently and discreetly; that there's a host of these guys who have followed McLauglin in convincincing people that screaming and bullying is the same thing as discussion and dissent. Oh, and I don't much care for their, "poor, poor, miserable, picked-upon by those meanie liberals," approach, either. It's not intelligent, it's not funny, it's mean-spirited stupidity being broadcast by handsomely-paid propagandists.

4. So, when Moore gets a regular TV and/or radio show, and gets paid several mil a year to call people traitors, and immoral, and all the rest of it, why, then you can afford to be offended too. When he gets paid to demand that people be thrown out of the country, or hanged, or shot, you can get offended too. Until then, I guess you're going to have to take umbrage at his calling for the enforcement of the law. I guess you'll have to remain miffed about his constant, reiterated assertion that even rich and powerful people ought to be called to account for what they do, and that everybody ought to get a fair break. Oooh wow, now that's un-American.

5. A lot of what people get upset about is the simple portrayal of reality. It's the mirroring that does it, just as in Frederick Wiseman's films, and martial artists ought to know a little something about mirroring.

6. So if'n you don't like the movies, say so by all means. Attack the facts and show where they're wrong. Expose the times that Moore distorts reality, citing your sources for better information. Or would that take work, and knowledge?

7. Sheesh.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 21, 2004)

Rich Parsons said:
			
		

> I guess I need to go find something else to do Friday



Come on Rich! Come drink the cool-aid with us! I'll be doctoring up my 9th degree black belt certificate, then it's too the theatre we go.

We've got a party goin' on so far. It's Kate and I for sure. Nate and some chick might come. If my other Brother Jim comes, you nestle up with him during the movie so you won't have to watch the scary parts. :rofl: 

Come party with us!  artyon:


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 21, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Just for the sheer hell of it:
> 
> 1. "Moore is a jerk." Oh, really. Have you met? How do you happen to know this? Did he kick your dog, your cat, your kid? It's quite common to make these assumptions about personality when we disagree, especially about serious issues--I tend to feel that Ronald Reagan was a creep, for example--but it isn't rational, and it very likely isn't accurate.
> 
> ...



Robert not sure if this was directed at me or anyone in particular.

So here goes.

1) Yes, we meet.

2) In character that might be fine, but like I said before, he did not wish to do a followup about Flint, when he could not paint the big companies in the bad light. One sided. 

3) I do not like Rush either, and like I said before if he has a movie I would not recommend to go to it either.

4) I am offended, because he stated he helped out Flint. I still do not see the results of his help.

5) I use the mirror tactic myself here for posting, and it usually makes the point. The difference is that I admit that I am not 100% right all the time.

6) I did post where he distorted the truth. He found a red neck who sold rabbits for food or pets. He made it sound like everyone from Flint had to eat rabbits to get by because the big ole bad corp put them on the street. He stated he helped out Flint and it is better because of his movie. I do not see it. It is better because people know there is not chance of getting a job with with the big bad corp. Also to do with the multiple universities and collegees that have sprung up, and or grown in the last 20 years. Nothing to do with his propaganda about the big bad corp hurting the little worker. I discussed this earlier, about the wages and the issues involved. Sorry if I did not explain it well to you and others.

7) I agree Sheesh!


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 21, 2004)

Tulisan said:
			
		

> Come on Rich! Come drink the cool-aid with us! I'll be doctoring up my 9th degree black belt certificate, then it's too the theatre we go.
> 
> We've got a party goin' on so far. It's Kate and I for sure. Nate and some chick might come. If my other Brother Jim comes, you nestle up with him during the movie so you won't have to watch the scary parts. :rofl:
> 
> Come party with us!  artyon:



No Kool-aid for me. And I thought Jim Jones was out of the business. Oh you mean your little brother Jimmy.


----------



## Feisty Mouse (Jun 21, 2004)

Robert

You can't see it, but I lit and held aloft a lighter while reading #3.

Rich

I imagine it must be frustruating for the folks in Flint who didn't see help coming from the film distribution.  I still think it was a worthwhile documentary - I certainly didn't get the impression from the rabbit woman that all the folks in Flint were doing likewise, just that woman.  But I can understand being a person living in town and being pissed that I thought that was how my town was being portrayed. 

FM


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 21, 2004)

Sorry, Rich, but when you met--what exactly did he do to you that was so bad? 

I'd also note that it's not exactly distorting the facts if you portray what's real. The, "Pets or Meat," lady's real, right? He ran into her sign driving down the street while filming, right? Yes, the context's important--but he simply filmed what he saw, in this case. He didn't make her up, any more than he made up the bank that passes out guns in, "Bowling for Columbine."

I still cannot see exactly how in the hell Moore's responsible for GM pulling out of Flint, or what's happened in the--what, 20 years?--since "Roger & Me," came out. What, Mike started corporate capitalism and its present internationalist trend? He passed NAFTA? Huh?

If he took credit for anything good  that happened in Flint afterwards, that's bad. (Not as bad as, say, launching an undeclared war for no particular really good reason, or cheating old ladies out of gas and electricity money, or gassing Bhopal, but bad.) But I still don't see anything awful--Savage and his ilk, too, do far worse things and carry out far worse distortions five nights a week, and I don't see a thread here bemoaning that.

Hm.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 21, 2004)

Heh. My turn to rant. Or...how about I let our frind Mike do it for us...

From: http://www.michaelmoore.com/words/message/index.php



> Some People Still Don't Want You To See My Movie... From Michael Moore
> 
> 
> Friends,
> ...



Silly me...I thought I would be free to see this movie regardless. Darned civil liberties...who needs em'? Looks like I'll be having to double check a theater near me. 

Love or hate the guy, shouldn't it make ya'll wonder why a film with (according to claims, but we;ll have to see) no more violence then what is on the daily news would have an R rating. Hmmm...and PR groups being paid to preassure theaters into not seeing the film...?

Naw...but we don't have a problem in our country...not at all. If everyone just works real hard, then we'll all be happy. Haliburton for President...

Your Friend,

Thomas E. Dewey


----------



## michaeledward (Jun 22, 2004)

I was reading the michael moore web site ... apparently, both Al Franken and Bill O'Reilly were in attendance for the New York screening. It's a good thing that the theater was big.

I hear that O'Reilly (who has been doing a good job of slamming, while not slamming the movie) left before the movie was 1/2 way complete. Of course, that doesn't stop him from proclaiming that Moore is a liar.

Also of note, Moore has set up a 'Rapid Response Fact Check' team to address the rants that the movie generates. When some talking head says that XYZ in the movie isn't true, Moore will respond with what was in the movie, why it was included, and what was left out of the movie for insufficient evidence.

Of course, those that don't care to know, won't check. But it will be nice, for those who care to know, can find more information than just what the movie projects.

Mike


----------



## Rich Parsons (Jun 22, 2004)

rmcrobertson said:
			
		

> Sorry, Rich, but when you met--what exactly did he do to you that was so bad?
> 
> I'd also note that it's not exactly distorting the facts if you portray what's real. The, "Pets or Meat," lady's real, right? He ran into her sign driving down the street while filming, right? Yes, the context's important--but he simply filmed what he saw, in this case. He didn't make her up, any more than he made up the bank that passes out guns in, "Bowling for Columbine."
> 
> ...



Robert,

He did not answer my questions. He just walked away, and then later left town quietly.

As to the rabbit lady, I could find others just like her in any large city. Turth is the perception of truth. If I only give one perception and this is all people see then that becomes the truth to them.

Oh, and I cannot believe you actually went and did this. You changed the subject, and lofted a red herring out there. Robert, I thought better of you. I agree you are looking for facts. I maybe a single data point in a 100 million people. Yet, whe asked, I will give the data I have and the truth as I see it.

 :asian:


----------



## rmcrobertson (Jun 22, 2004)

Sounds to me, Rich, like you can't stand what the guy's saying and you're looking for reasons after the fact.

If he quietly walked away, I don't quite see how that makes him the devil. Hate to say it, but isn't that what martial artists are supposed to do, rather than fight? 

And again, I don't  see that he's made anything up. I don't see that he's grossly distorted what he saw. And I don't see how he stuck it to Flint--or has GM brought all the jobs back?

There're very few voices in this country that still offer more than the Official Market Line, and Moore's one of 'em. Moreover, he's one of the few still sticking up for plain old working people, and their right to have a decent job for decent pay.

I wonder why it is that nobody ever gets on these forums and screams when, say, Levi-Strauss pulls its last jobs out of this country. I wonder why more people don't find it a tad offensive when programming jobs and tax returns start gettting shipped to India, so even if you HAVE busted your tail and retrained, you're still screwed. I wonder why Moore's the issue--ok, actually I don't  wonder. It's because he's not radical enough, right?

Nope. It's because he's more or less showing reality, and that reality conforms neither to the chirpy propaganda we get from TV and business, nor to the whacko distortions of everything coming out of the Bush administration.


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 22, 2004)

> Nope. It's because he's more or less showing reality, and that reality conforms neither to the chirpy propaganda we get from TV and business, nor to the whacko distortions of everything coming out of the Bush administration.



Rich and few others are acceptions to this rule, but...

I'd say that for most people, they don't like Moore or what anyone has to say that they don't agree with because they can't think out of their idiolectic box; as they cling to their perception of reality like a child clings to a security blank it at night to make the monsters go away.

Unfortunatily, no one can be told what the matrix is...you have to see it for yourself.

Some would rather just take the blue pill....

Your mentor,
Morpheus


----------



## Cruentus (Jun 22, 2004)

Oh yea...

3 days left...


----------

