An anonymous tipster alerted us via the News tab to a possible racist/scandalous/nebulous slip of Michael Moore’s tongue. I sat through the entire, excruciating 10+ minute video at Breitbart.tv, only to discover that the controversial part is at the end; the video I posted below features the last eleven seconds of the entire segment and contains the relevant moment.
Link: sevenload.com
Well? What do you think? Racist or immature? Mispronounced or intentionally mangled? Or is this much ado about nothing? Comments on Breitbart were hot, heated and divided about whether or not Michael Moore started to channel Apu. What say you?
I’ve heard Moore mention that Kucinich is the only one who has a detailed health plan at that point. I don’t know if this is Moore’s definition of detailed/baked, and the plan primarily consists of cheering manifestations of Kucinich’s tongue-ringed blonde Goddess, or if the plan is actually substantial enough to have a serious discussion about. Can somebody who knows more elaborate?
Yep! I agree.
And as a vegetarian I don’t want my money going to some carnivore’s diseased colon when they could’ve adopted a compassionate and healthy diet as early as 12!
But the cost of health care in this country is so SHAMEFUL and the pharma industry is SHAMELESS in fleecing people. Chem trails are flying over suburbs daily to make us get sick and purchase that shit. And now they want to “regulate” the herbal, vitamin and healthfood industry. That infomercial “the cures they don’t want you to know about” is true. The guy’s books are spot on. And it’s true, they really don’t want people to become enlightened self healers. The whole system makes me sick!!!!
At least in India you can get FREE or super-cheap homeopathic medicines almost anywhere.
The $$$$$$$$ obsession of the American government and corporate world makes me sick, sick, sick.
Are you an advocate for child labor? Because that’s exactly what I would have had to do, in order to eat a cuisine other than what my mother served in the home. I believe many others would identify with this position.
and you don’t think this is a GOOD thing? I write products coverage for supplements and let me tell you–i appreciate, 100%, that the government is requiring mfgs of these products to hold their hoodoo to the same purity standards as regular pharms.
Like Viagra in your Hoodia supps? Or perhaps a methylated designer steroid in your pro-hormone or virility supps? These adulterations happened and will continue to happen unless the gov’t puts their foot down.
I grew up on naturopathy (haven’t really lived until you received “colored light” therapy for a nasty case of bronchitis), homeopathy and various organic, non-sugar, non-cowmilk products and it was pretty damn miserable. Some of these things work, but none are regularly subjected to double-blind clinical trials.
down enough echinacea-goldenseal in solution and all you’ll experience is a nice buzz from the alcohol.
Never too pro-hormones or virility supps. What is Hoodia?
Anyway, I guess I did not say what I was meaning.
They want to make Vitamin C and others prescription only. And they want to introduce some other laws that will make certain normal, natural herbs and what-not hard to get.
I’ve read the conspiracies on this subject and they are backed by facts and figures.
Anyway, echinacea-goldenseal has helped me during colds.
Evertime I see your name in writing here I’m reminded of the only other “Murli” that I know, and he is quite the character and ladies man.
No, it actually is the case. How you can ignore the fact that Micheal Moore backs up his claims with facts and others do not, is simply idiotic. As for being sensationalistic, it’s standard Michael Moore technique, produce an entertaining, energetic, ironic and unapologetically sarcastic piece to get people’s attentions, when people attack its factual (not opinion) credibility, produce irrefutable facts to back them up. Let me turn the question on you, as much proclivity you have towards dry, lifeless, boring policy journals, would we be having this discussion had a film not penetrated hollywood studio & distribution filters to make it to the big screen?
And don’t get me wrong, I agree that Michael Moore is pompous and arrogant, in fact I have anecdotal evidence, a friend of a friend was an assistant editor on Sicko, and said the post supervisors & Michael Moore weren’t too chummy. I also know someone who was a PA on the Awful Truth (Michael Moore’s tv series)
When it’s done at the expense of human life, repeatedly (bankruptcy is inability to cover medical expenses. Are you claiming most of these were because they didn’t join a cardio kickboxing class?
In fact on this very site was highlighted an extremely tragic diagnosis of leukemia of a very healthy male, who’s personal story I do not know too much about, but I believe in cases like these, the question of “Can I afford it?” should never come into the picture (as it did in the case highlighted in SiCKO)
Incidently, for all your virulence against the movie, did you even see it?
HMF:
My virulence isn’t against the movie nor have I seen it. My distaste is for the director – I’ve seen other MM films and they’ve turned me off. My comments were about socialized medicine and MM, not sicko.
This is the reason why I’m not sitting here specifically picking sicko apart, how can I if I haven’t seen it? Rather I’m making a general argument against socialized medicine as a solution to the inefficient system from whatever I understand about economics and my opinions on the American landscape. I am NOT defending the current system. Rather I think we need to really think about what works for Americans, not Brits, French, or Canadians. Speaking of bad insurance, the movie Rainmaker comes to mind.
Maybe others wouldn’t, but I’d geek it out regardless.
more moore:
please substantiate your claim that they want to make Vitamin C prescription only. I read the FDA statement and nowhere in it do they say, “we wish to make the supplement industry subject to the same prescription-based access point as pharmaceutical drugs.” They simply wish to subject these supplements to the same purity standards as pharmaceutical ones. Perhaps you were not alive during the late 70s and early 80s–a time in which the FDA made it nearly impossible to get ANYTHING approved due to the lengthy and laborious approval process. Now, when it’s almost too easy to get things approved, the public now wants MORE scrutiny.
fine. just fine with me. And mm, are you one of those 9/11 truthers? Are you still quivering with rage after your second viewing of Loose Change, Recut? I’ll excuse your conspiracy-mongering if this is the case.
Here’s a little perspective: supplements are a 20+billion dollar industry and no sane American government would ever make it too hard for such a slice of our economy to work.
And regarding the echinacea, i’ve never seen a double-blind clinical long-term study, which proved that it was effective in augmenting the body’s immune system. Sometimes, when i’m sick, I take a shit. I immediately then feel better. Is this proof of shitting’s great medical properties?
Many a media outlet (both mainstream and not) have said SiCKo is departure from the norm of his previous films. Anyhow, F911 and BFC (I can’t imagine Roger and Me turning you off, nor you having the scope to see his lesser known productions aka awful truth, and others) both have factual backups, but I will say from reading the Hardy criticisms (the first to really come out against BFC, before Moorewatch), some of those critiques hold some water. I really don’t know what can ‘turn you off’ other than being a member or sympathizer with the groups he takes to task (flagrant gun owner, Bush supporter, ardent corporate supporter, etc…)
And Michael Moore agrees with you, as do I, no one thinks we should outright borrow from another system completely, rather we should steal the best parts of each system to create a unique one. But private insurance has to go.
Nevertheless, the movie wouldn’t have been blogged about, and we wouldn’t be discussing it, so never mind what you would or wouldn’t do, you can’t deny the film has brought the issue into the laps of many people who’d have rather ignored it.
And the self righteous right-wing that has always had the “grr michael moore, he’s a left wing nut, he hates america grrrr” cushion to fall back to, don’t even have that this time.
Dude, you’re coloring things very black and white here. How things are presented is a pet peeve of mine. Hence the preference of boring, in depth documentaries/studies, whatever vs sensationalistic stuff. I find it interesting though how a gun owner (what does flagrant mean?) or a Bush supporter are ‘bad’ people. I’m sick and tired of both of these ideological sides (left and right) slinging crap at each other claiming ‘moral’ high ground. Bullshit. Lefties support terrorists, righties are dumb, etc. etc. etc….
My experiences with government also come from working IN it.
There is no monetary incentive for quality in healthcare, like in in many other businesses there is no incentive for quality production if the market doesn’t really care about it. Another example of government healthcare would be the Military/and VA. Some locations are great, overall the system isn’t what it’s cracked up to be though. If the government doesn’t a good enough job of taking care of people who’re willing to take a bullet, I don’t know if the morons we have up on the hill (all of congress/senate/executives) can come up with plan for 300 million.
My brother in law recently told me of how the house-call doctors are becoming a bit more popular. A flat monthly fee gets you access anytime to the doctor.
seems to me he just got frustrated, and fumbled on his words. i think some people may be reading into it a tad bit too much.
Oh the irony. I believe it was you who used the phrase, “‘turn you off'” as oppposed to on, suggesting a binary categorization.
Secondly, you’re conflating mediums. PBS/viewer supported television has the proper medium for an elongated multi part indepth look at an issue, where a multitude of experts can be consulted, and humor and sarcasm (ie entertainment value) can be sublimated. In fact, there are many in the documentary film business who say PBS has become too dependent on talking heads, rather than visual evidence to support its claims.
For the Weinstein Company to put the money into marketing & distribution ( via Lions Gate) they need to have some assurance of return of investment. Feature Film production and distribution is a for profit business, and it should stay that way (other wise we’d be China and North Korea) Michael Moore style documentary filmmaking is a box office draw at this point, in part due to the sensationalism (sarcasm, irony, humor) that in my book is effective in driving the point home.
For that, I think he’s a pioneer, in spite of his personal ambitions to court attention and be center of attention. Taking 9-11 rescue workers, suffering from ailments incurred on the job to an American military base where some kind of minimal care (I’ll agree, it’s not the best) is offered to people believed (and yes, many people are/were wrongfully there, ie the Tipton 6) to be our sworn enemies, does uncover some level of irony.
They’re not bad per se, but they have vested interests in discrediting Michael Moore. and don’t call me dude. You’re the dude. Without dudeness, you’d just some random Guju.
Wow, didn’t realize you’d get all bent out of shape from me calling you ‘dude’. Regardless, I am a random Guju (dude or not) and not all that important. Just another cog in the wheel of the internet. And MM has vested interests in discrediting people he’s after. Movies are his bread and butter, but isn’t the only place where his soapbox is at.
I didn’t think Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel documentary was all that bad or lacking in ‘visual’ evidence with kids in Zambian hospital dying of Malaria. Nor a whole host of other documentaries.
Anyway, this has gone too far. Have a good weekend. Dude.
This makes no sense. how does MM personally benefit by discrediting the health insurance industry, he’s a multimillionaire and can afford all the health care he wants.
You too, Go see SiCKo, you might learn something. Can’t have that, can we?
Moore was not being racist. He was doing what he does best…..making a scene & stirring things up. Moore has been clearly outclassed by Dr. Gupta. Generally speaking the more intelligent people get, the better they get at understanding the gray areas. Unfortunately Moore doesn’t do too well in the gray areas. Moore is trying to reach out to dumb people and they only understand black and white. If the publicity generated from ‘Sicko’ actually forces some positive changes to the health care system in the US, then that is a good thing. Moore is a conspiracy theorist and not a balanced journalist like Dr Sanjay Gupta. But we should realize that people like Moore have a place in society and can be right about issues too.
If by outclassed you mean having assume correctness on his side, and not havaing facts to back up his statements, then you’re correct. Try to put away your automatic dissention for Michael Moore for a second and see who’s come out on top here with respect to the facts.
–
-Try to put away your automatic dissention for Michael Moore for a second …….
I do not have an automatic dissension for Michael Moore.I only care about the facts and that they are presented in an unbiased way. I have a strong distaste for spin and bias in general whether it is leaning to the left or to the right.I realize that the conservatives do a much better job of ‘spin’ than liberals. When I start to detect any kind of bias, I become skeptical and have to turn on my filter. There is no question that Michael Moore has been right about many things, but he often comes across as being unnecessarily abrasive. Moore was not racist but Dr. Sanjay Gupta was just not a fair target for Moore.
every time you watch any piece of mainstream media, this filter must automatically go on then.
It was Gupta that produced the erroneous piece with the egregious error (off by a factor of 10!, then claiming a transcription mistake), then accusing Moore of chery picking, when he did the same thing with the waiting time ranking (by using that single metric alone) Who was targetting who here?
Not racist. I viewed the CNN segment in its entirety and it sounds like Wolf and Moore both pronounce it goopta throughout the segment. The only difference is that when Moore started hyperventilating, he put extra emphasis on the “goo” in goo-pta. And, since when does trying to imitate/ridicule an indian accent cause you to pronounce gupta as goopta? Wouldn’t that be ridiculing an american accent?
Gratuitous shot on Sicko…if America’s health care is so bad, why is it that rich people from around the world come to America for medical treatment but I’ve never heard of rich Americans going elsewhere for treatment (with the exception of getting treatment not medically sanctioned in the US)? Seems like America is the Mercedes Benz of health care systems…well-engineered, safe, and innovative (although admittedly costly).
One other thing on the health care subject. Let’s remember that 45% of health care spending in the US is done by government (primarily medicare and medicaid) and this share is set to grow as the baby boomers retire. So, let’s not forget that government sponsored health care plans are a very large part of the supposedly “sick” US health system.
Umang (#271):
What’s your point? Are you saying that money is being spent well?
Dude, you should just chill… Remember that Dr.Gupta agreed with 90% of Moore’s claims. Gupta’s transcription error was major goof up, and he admitted it. Gupta’s comment about ‘fudging numbers’ was also unnecessary. I agree that this is not one of Dr. Gupta’s stellar reports, but he was balanced. Moore obviously overreacted and so are the freaks sending death threats to Dr. Gupta.
Response to HMF :
Dude, you should just chill… Remember that Dr.Gupta agreed with 90% of Moore’s claims. Gupta’s transcription error was major goof up, and he admitted it. Gupta’s comment about ‘fudging numbers’ was also unnecessary. I agree that this is not one of Dr. Gupta’s stellar reports, but he was balanced. Moore obviously overreacted and so are the freaks sending death threats to Dr. Gupta.
I really don’t see an overreaction. if Gupta did a report saying you wore womans underwear and slept in a mess of gummi worms and mayonnaise, you’d want that story retracted as well. On the serious tip, there’s nothing wrong in my book with someone requesting retraction for making wrong statements, especially when that person claims himself to be a journalist.
cuz they’re rich.
To HMS:
??????? ‘fudging numbers’= ‘you wore womans underwear and slept in a mess of gummi worms and mayonnaise’ ???????
What kinda weed you smokin dude? You sound like a total pervert…….
–
– nothing wrong in my book with someone ‘requesting’ retraction for making wrong statements
I couldn’t agree with you more. But, if you think Moore was only ‘requesting’ retraction of statements, then we must have seen different interviews.
‘fudging numbers’= ‘you wore womans underwear and slept in a mess of gummi worms and mayonnaise’
first of all, he said “fudge facts”, not “fudge numbers” and that’s something a documentarian would take seriously. Secondly, it was a joke because I followed up with “on the serious tip”
What kinda weed you smokin dude? You sound like a total pervert…….
I’m not a total one, I vary from 70-80% depending on the quality of weed.
LOL… Its past 4:20, but I guess Gupta and Moore should just smoke a bowl together:) Peace..
Um, you were the first one to post the snarky and inarguable definition of propaganda–I just showed you were wrong to try to claim some type of ownership on the definition of the term. As for a historical point of view, you’re simply wrong.
Produce your proof. Every link I’ve provided, and even definitions you’ve provided support my claim of systematic, group oriented propogation of ideas. The general point here is, if someone puts out a movie, film, pamphlet, whatever, and everyone rushes out to discredit it, it doesn’t really function as any kind of propaganda anymore. But when you hear from umpteen different directions that Iraq has weapons of mass distruction (gov & mainstream media, print, talkshows, radio) and don’t really question it right away (that’s why mainstream media is called ‘mainstream’) thats what truly is propaganda.
i’m sorry hmf, i can’t just explain away your ridiculous statements with a bout of cognitive dissonance anymore. What do you mean provide my proof!!!! Have you read any of the posts we’ve posted. You’ve posted a grand total of 1!!!!! link to your definition of propaganda from wikipedia. I then posted 4 separate links that all had at least one definition of propaganda as deceptive information not necessarily put out by a government or organization. I know youre quite slow, but those numbers next to the definitions refer to the number of different definitions a word may take on. Get that through your simple head. On top of that I even listed the academics who have engaged in a number of different studies of propaganda which seek to show it isn’t as narrow a construct as youre making it. It says a lot that you and the other critic who posted after you have yet to actually engage a single point or reference in any of my posts. Did you even look up who ellul and the other are or are you just a brick wall that’ll repeat the same thing over and over.
And spare me the woe is me, everybody listens to bush like sheep rhetoric. His approval rating is nearing the mendoza line and the vast majority of americans are opposed to the war on iraq. And yet that still misses the point. Propaganda doesn’t have to be effective to be propaganda!!! When the allies dropped propaganda fliers over occupied parts of europe, they were still propaganda regardless of their ability to convince. Your line of logic is simply unbelievable. Should the definition of the role that something intends to play be based upon its effectiveness as you seem to contend? If so we can excuse lies that aren’t tantamount to deceiving with regards to the entire point like you do for moore and heck we can start excuse attempted crimes because they never succeeded either.
They’re not available, on michaelmoore’s website they state they used the most recent data, if cuban projected #s for 2007 were available they’d use them. Either way the difference is so staggering, Gupta’s harping on it show’s hes got no where else to go.
So you’re point is that its ok to cherry pick statistics and be somewhat deceiving because of their de minimis nature? Well then its all about opinions of what is truly de minimis and you’re isn’t the absolute truth (which you seem to ignore w/regards to every statement you make). The point is that everyone understand’s he’d use the latest data for Cuba if it were available, but its still a very poor academic practice to not take data youre comparing for two points from the same source if that’s the only place they are both available. For example, if i took the mpg of a 2007 hummer versus a 2004 ford focus versus a 2004 hummer vs 2004 focus, that would be deceptive. The 2004 values for both give an accurate depiction of their statement within the same temporal step–as time goes by the numbers will obviously adjust and its foolish to suggest that a 2007 model is probably the same as 2004 or as good as one if you don’t have the value for the other data point. It may not be an enormous deal as that focus obviously still has way better mpg but its still a poor research method and that’s what gupta was trying to point out. As for Cuba as a paragon of health provisions, that is an incredible joke
Sicko never hides from Cuba’s ranking, it was CNN that used their logo to cover it up.
have you watched the movie? i’m not talking bout rankings w/this point, but instead when Moore takes a bunch of americans to cuba to get treatment where they obviously get red carpet treatment which is passed of by moore as run of the mill care. Its unfortunately one of Moore’s common practices.
as well as a vast number of criticisms from all political spectra
I’ve read all the criticisms, 90% of them are nitpicking, dodging the real issue, or have a problem with Moore’s editing/opinion. Most critics have ties to right wing thinktanks or corporations and have vested interests in discrediting Moore. Every objective statement in each of Moore’s films are true, his opinions are just that. Opinion.
Well those are you opinions on the criticism—its important to actually attack the substance of the criticism’s versus the source because otherwise nobody would talk to anybody else. And while moore may have many correct objective points, its the narrative which can be deceptive by decontextualizing them. I can say something like unemployment during FDR’s presidency was on average about 3 TIMES as high as during dubya and that would be an ‘objective statement’ which is meant to contribute to a misleading narrative.
Similarily, just claiming, ‘well people know taxes will go up’ or they’ll have shift money from other areas is an extreme copout.
Lemme get this straight. It’s a copout to suggest that people living in any kind of society will understand that calling something “free” doesn’t mean they’ll pay for it in another way? Because so many things in our world are free correct? Yeah, I can see that. Every morning I wake up and have to turn down all the free sh*t people give me, from money to cars to stereo systems. It’s a real hassle, I wish people would start charging for stuff again.
What’s youre argument? There are a lot of things which people recieve for free from their government without necessarily having an increase in taxes. Let me give your infantile mind an example: Let’s say the goverment puts back in place the estate tax, which only the really rich have to pay–they then use that extra revenue to give away free stereos to folks below the poverty line. In effect from a direct sense (spare me tenuous economic externalities), those who are receiving the stereos just received it for free. The european countries I referred to don’t do that. I even spelled it out for you when i mentioned that the VAT which they institute which makes up most of those increased taxes actually acts in a regressive manner with respect to household income. They have to directly pay more taxes!!!
Seriously, you need to stop the reflexive anecdotal argument and look up a dictionary when people respond to you. You do know the difference between regressive and progressive taxes right?
For ce:
“Let’s not glorify a guy who has the right idea about some issues but in the end is a complete dolt.”
Can’t believe I spent so much time reading a post by an idiot like you. In the end, the “idiot” you don’t think we should applaud just might do a lot more for the proletariat in the US than you typing away at a mind-numbing rate on SM. I’ll take the latter idiot. Thank you very much.
There is no dearth of armchair philosophers in this world. Few have any execution at all.
cool. i call a guy an idiot based upon a couple posts of documentation of misleading facts he’s posted. you then counter by saying i’m an idiot because he will still help the proletariat more than i will.
There are a couple problems though. First you don’t know how pro- proletariat i am. Second, your argument is essentially the ends justify the means argument. Eugene V Debs would have done a lot more for the proletariat if he was chosen dictator of the US in the early 1900’s insteading of having teddy and the rest govern so i assume you’d be for that. And you’d also then seemingly be for a bunch of other unpopular idea, including support of Stalin’s Ukranian Purges which essentially just were a response to wealthy ukranian farmer’s stubborn and greedy refusal to farm land in siberia and increase totals crop output for the soviet union because their skills would be better utilized in teh underperforming areas. See how ridiculous your argument is and how unfair erecting strawmen are too?
By the way, its cute to rail against armchair philosophers in an internet post and ostensibly claim that Moore is actually a man of action/execution. All he does is disseminate information he collects using forms of media into the the democracy that is our current media (he does it in movie form). Posts on the internet actually do the same thing as long as they collect disparate sources of information and present them together in a narrative to another outlet which can be democratically viewed. I mean, if i had the time and the money Moore does then sure, I’d try to make a far better documentary advocating better healthcare in the US. This really seems to be a weak form of the chickenhawk argument though which is juvenile.
And HMF, its also amazing you post uber liberal sources without any thought of their bias and yet rail on anything with a perceived right wing link. If you’d ever glanced at some of her books you’d see that Ann Coulter does source her research–she actually was instrumental in spreading the message about the venona cables (don’t worry HMF–you can wikipedia them). She’s not as far from Moore as you think. I agree she’s worse though but for different reasons—its not her lack of sourcing (though sometimes its done poorly or deceptively as well) but instead its the fact she’s a racist, ignorant and poor excuse of a human being when it comes to altruism–of course she also is likely a man too.
Learn to count first.
And here are your definitions posted from #221:
Sicko is not sysematic in the sense that there is a singular source behind it. However, the president/white house message doesn’t come strictly from the white house, it comes through corporate media channels, and other corporate entities, video games, toys, etc.. How thick do you have to be to not discern this difference? A news agency like CNN has assumed believability, Michael moore has exactly the opposite!
It’s not cherry picking when they’re not available. Secondly your ill-thought example of automotive mpg’s doesn’t apply, because the dynamics of the a pure technological measurement are much simpler and less “politically loaded” than a stat on health care. If you look at the UN report, you’ll see China’s numbers not even listed. Perhaps the Cuban gov’t hasn’t changed their spending drastically from that report? There could be a million reasons. I will agree, Michael Moore could have used the $5700 figure from the UN report and still made the same point, but choosing not to is not bad academic practice, because he’s using the latest numbers available.
Read Al Franken’s chapter in “Lies” and you’ll see her methods of research.
Stop strawmanning. Surely, implicit in calling something propaganda is a level of effectiveness, this is more true in current usage. Point me to a case in history where something was collectively agreed upon as propaganda (that’s spatially or temporally separated from the source) that wasn’t effective in influencing opinion, and came under the kind of scrutiny that Michael Moore’s films did.
Then, if I simply get up on a cardboard box and spew out my “infantile” statements, it can as well be construed as propaganda according to you, correct? I mean, I’m aggressively pushing a point of view. The fact that I have absolutely no infrastructure, no effective delivery system, no multi-faceted approach is irrelevant? In fact, the very posts I’ve put on this board, are indeed propaganda by your imbecilic definition. If you neglect the systematic approach to propaganda, while you quote definitions that state it over and over again, I really can’t do much about that.
Don’t be an idiot. It’s obvious I was speaking in a collective sense. They got their stereos, but collectively, socially, it was paid for. Either way your example doesn’t erase the fact that most Americans, hell most people would understand that “free” health care services, as complex and necessary as they are to our existence, would be paid for in some way collectively. And the movie Sicko doesn’t hide from this fact, even though it does use the words “free healthcare”
This is not even worth responding to.
Well, it’s your assumption he’s attempting to display it as a “paragon”, I look at it and say he’s simply showing it’s not the evil hellhole that so many people make it out to be. Every cuban has minimal access to a doctor. 45 million American don’t see doctors because they cannot afford it. A comparison of the richest country in the world and Cuba is like comparing the amount mike tyson can bench and the amount erkle can bench, seriously comparing the two in itself is the joke.
Gupta wasn’t making a general observation about how one should conduct research when reporting information in some general vacuum, he implied the “cherry pick” would have adverse effects on the audiences decision to evaluate the status of and their personal convictions regarding health care. Let’s look at Gupta’s follow up statement for justifying why he nitpicked the 7000 vs 5700 figure, direct from the cnn transcript:
“And you brought up the point, Larry, maybe the numbers aren’t that wildly different. But I think the numbers are important here because I think the issue here is that I think it blackens the eyes of people who are actually trying to do something about health care, who actually want to know the numbers, who want to do right by their bodies and their loved one’s health. It makes it very hard to advance the argument if you’re not getting the numbers right. “
And see? This is the quintessential strawman technique of yours, reframe the argument to state something other than the original contention, and disprove that. I understand, it’s difficult when you’re actually presented facts. Gupta’s statement reads like saying, “the sun is not 93 million miles away from the earth, it’s 92.5 million and you know, if you don’t get the numbers right people won’t get the idea that the Sun is really far away from the earth”
unlike you, i actually respond to entireties of posts (it’s pretty embarassing that you have no response to huge sections of criticism), even parts where i’m wrong–and yes i was wrong on this point. You put down two references. Good job—too bad the rest of your response is ridiculous, especially the next part which is beautiful:
Cool. Can I say a word and then use the phrase ‘in the sense that’ in order to co-opt its definition? See, your definition of propaganda and refutation of the multiple definitions of propaganda would make sense if systematic meant what you wished it meant and what your tried to make it mean. Systematic clearly does not mean ‘having a singular source’ behind it however. Instead it means precisely what I attributed its meaning to be–procedural/organized/methodical in nature which is exactly the form which Moore’s films take and which you correctly state isn’t true about our unorganized posts. Sucks to be utterly wrong huh? Don’t try to be so haughty about knowing a definition and characterizing it as your own. Here are links to the definition of systematic though—you can try to scrape ‘singular source’ as a defintion but it sure as heck isn’t a regularly used defintion from this source: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/systematic or this one http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/systematic or of either of your sources: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/systematic and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/systematic
It’s kind of hard now to deny Moore or admittedly other documentaries’ propaganda-ist nature without making up definitions.
As for the Bush bit, I dont understand who you’re arguing against. Aside from the point that it is now obvious that that isnt the only true propaganda, i never said i disagreed with you that the bush administration doesn’t have a intricate propaganda system supporting it. It does. Doesn’t change the fact that you were utterly wrong in trying to use an arrogant ownership of the definition of propaganda to try to stifle the fact that Moore’s movies also come under that word.
It’s not cherry picking when they’re not available. Secondly your ill-thought example of automotive mpg’s doesn’t apply, because the dynamics of the a pure technological measurement are much simpler and less “politically loaded” than a stat on health care. If you look at the UN report, you’ll see China’s numbers not even listed. Perhaps the Cuban gov’t hasn’t changed their spending drastically from that report? There could be a million reasons. I will agree, Michael Moore could have used the $5700 figure from the UN report and still made the same point, but choosing not to is not bad academic practice, because he’s using the latest numbers available.
You know what, I agree its not cherry picking (not for the reasons you mentioned but because i suspect that there wouldn’t be an enormous difference between the point made by the diffrent numbers) but it is most certainly a bad academic practice. First you claim the analogy isn’t feasible because of some amorphous ‘politically loaded’ tinge is laughable. Theyre both quantitative measurements. One is a rate analysis based upon chemical reaction rates and the other is a simple mathematical calculation based upon how much each government spends in particular ways (which are all standardized for the purposes of the study for all countries) divided by its population. Really hard to say its ‘politically loaded’, though that’s mainly because your trying to obfuscate what is a perfectly reasonable analogy. The whole issue of extended healthcare is ‘politically loaded’ but standardized arithmetic within such an issue doesn’t have to be. For example, there isn’t anything subjective about income tax as a percentage of income just because its possibly used in divisive arguments. The truth is that any serious academic would at the very least directly source or mention the time difference between the two values taken.
Your arrogance over the definition of propaganda is the gift that keeps on giving. The reason why you can’t just choose your own definition of systematic is precisely given in the refutation to your attempted point here. Propaganda is systematic—your irrational rants wouldn’t qualify. As for the fact that your posts qualify as propaganda taken in tandem, i would contend that their so irrational that they wouldnt qualify as propaganda. However, they could be argued to be propaganda (as could a number of other things people may not characteristically think of as propaganda) but it wouldn’t be due to MY imbecilic definition. It’d be due to the sources i posted (including yours) definition. Remember you were the one who originally brought in the precise definition of propaganda to be so snooty.
Yeah. I’m sure people who are looking at whether they’re willing to ‘pay’ for extended healthcare see no difference between having to personally dish out hypothetically 12-15% VAT from their own pockets versus a bunch of the richest people in america having to pay it and then having to ‘collectively’ share the burden. This is some karmic meditation circle where individuals feel the pain of others who’ll have to pay taxes. The bottom line for most people is the bottom line direct amount taken from their pockets. It’s insulting to try to claim there’s no distinction. I know the next argument youll trot out that the rich will somehow pass on the ‘collective’ burden then which will hit the lower economic stratas’ pockets, but that’s a facetious argument as well. Let’s say you used the extention of the estate tax on a partial extension. How would that pass down?—would the recipients of the estate all of a sudden figure in that they were providing for healthcare and somehow retaliate from the highest level against workers? And if so, do you honestly believe in that trickle down effect/ reagonomics? Its great too see your love of Moore is greater than how much you actually care for teh average working joe. To suggest that taxing the richest of the rich is tantamount to taxing everybody in society some type of VAT is silly, pernicious and smacks of putting ideology above everything else
its amazing that you quote gupta, and then use his exact words to try to contend exactly the opposite of what true. Ok, lets see, you say my strawman technique is that gupta and i claim that moore not using consistent numbers will change the interpretation of the point he’s trying to make—yet gupta and I both repeatedly say by your own admission that in fact he difference probably doesn’t make a huge difference in that particular point, but instead repeatedly using facts that aren’t done in a consistent manner but instead hurt ones credibility. I don’t know how to get that through to you anymore though i included the same point in my previous post to this one.
By the way, your analogy in this case is nonsensical because you aren’t comparing two data points from two different objects..you’re just commenting on how precise the sun’s distance is. A more accurate analogy precisely proves my point in science. Using the more exact 92.5 million miles as the sun’s distance from us and then comparing it to say a value of 12.4 million miles for venus (as opposed to 12 million miles) is the correct way to do the comparison because youre using correct levels on preciseness (in this case in terms of significant digits versus time frames). 93 million vs 12.4 would yes be somewhat accurate (in the sense of close enough) but definitely not academically worthy.
By the way, I agree coulter does have problems with some of her sources, just like Moore. I mean, if I can take franken’s substantive criticisms while ignoring his liberal bias surely you can do the same with the previous links i posted.
Great. do you take your nitpicking lessons from Dr. Gupta? Even if it’s propaganda, a 2 hour movie in no way equates to the propaganda deliverable by a machine. By the way, if I wanted to claim ownership to a word, it wouldn’t be propaganda, it would be something much more loaded, like “poontang”
I look at it from the racism definitional debate. People trying to equate the racism of white on black, with racism of black on white. The former has infrastructural power, and a systematic, institutional delivery system, making the other form of racism (if you really really want to use that word) more or less moot.
I was just waiting for you to define what “is” is.
Read the CNN transcript post.
Oh? and where in your definition of propaganda include rationality? In fact, those that identify propaganda in others, usually do so out of some degree of irrationality (or lack of facts)
Huh? can you read? You claimed Gupta’s bringing up the error was some kind of general statement on being a good academic:
It may not be an enormous deal as that focus obviously still has way better mpg but its still a poor research method and that’s what gupta was trying to point out.
Reading Gupta’s reason for why he nitpicked, it’s clear it wasn’t a general “you’re not a good academic” charge, rather he claimed an adverse effect on people’s opinion of the health care system, hell he even said “your bodies”
That’s just not true. Coulter has claimed absolutely false things to be true (for example, Dale Earnhardts lack of coverage on the NYT). Michael moore, even if he’s decontextualized facts to some degree (which I think in some cases, or he’s left irrelevant facts out – for example, the bank vault with the guns being 100 miles away or whatever, rather than being in the bank) he’s never flat out uttered untruth. Coulter seems to do this with no shame.
And seriously, if every link I provide you’re retort is , “well yah, they’re just biased.” then I don’t think you can discuss anything with anyone.
(http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20031023.html)
The problem is, Coulter wastes other peoples time by making them disprove her shit, much more time than I’ve wasted on you.
haha. Please, before you concede a point where you are caught making up your own definition to support points, understand that you were the first person to get nit picky over the word propaganda. I honestly wouldn’t have cared about this argument except that you were so rude in refuting the previous posters characterization of Moore’s work as propaganda. You did precisely own the definition of propaganda (what the heck were the quotes aroudn propaganda for then? or the capitalizatoin of CREDIT and MOVIES). You also did it in order to try to claim that Moore wasnt as credible a source as an organizational structure and so his supposed faults in some movies shouldn’t be considered as serious. And you were also narrow minded enough to try to claim your understood definition of propaganda was the only one and is the only important one. If that other guy characterized Moore as propaganda, and so do I doesn’t it suggest that the alternate definitions of propaganda besides the only one you advocate might actually have some merit–especially considering they’re included in a number of sources which define the word?
Its funny you’re trying to back track now and claim its nitpicky when the definition of propaganda was the first defense you used for Moore. I dont really care about the definition of every word in an argument, but your initial argument hinged on the definition of the word and all due to your own fault. It’s ok, we learn something every day–and now you can drop that silly argument and just make the more cogent point that Moore’s main points aren’t generally affected and even as propaganda are competing in a marketplace of propaganda (HMO sponsored messages in the media fore example) so its viable to use such methods.
As for rationality–being purposefully regular or methodological suggests some sort of rational basis.
By the way: the first definition from here: http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/systematic
is: elating to or consisting of a system
and system is defined as:
a regularly interacting or interdependent group of items forming a unified whole.
Oops there goes another rubber tree, Oops there goes another problem, kerplop.
Well, I’m sure the people I was rude to are thanking you profusely in their prayers each night for defending the meek, so gallantly. In fact, I’m sure this is the case, given the fact they most certainly tuned out 100 posts ago, as they’re so overcome with tears at your single handed tackling of the evil HMF. You should have your d*ck bronzed.
Secondly, I still believe the definition I provided of propaganda is the accepted definition by colloquial, and connotational persepectives as given by historical accounts. Thirdly, it’s clear I was comparing Moore’s films as propaganda vs. larger mainstream corporate & govt forms of propaganda with clearly more infrastructure as a set of things. It’s obvious it was a relative measurement I was making, not an absolute one.
http://www.poliblogger.com/?p=4221 http://www.hardylaw.net/Truth_About_Bowling.html http://www.hardylaw.net/omitted.html
You’re going to have to waste more time then. Moore has already faked newspaper headlines, spliced together disparate election adds and added words to them and lied about for example whether lockheed martin makes or transports nuclear missiles just to make points. And that’s just to start.
By the way, I was being sarcastic about the sources. I dont automatically reject sources due to my perceptions of their bias. If you could read you would have seen that it was actually a sarcastic response to yours and another posters dismissal of some sources as right wingers.
By the way, what relevance does bodies have to the point (namely none). Gupta even says in your own quote that it doesn’t change Moore’s point but does affect his CREDIBILITY, which is important for people trying to use him as an accurate source when deciding how to protect their and their loved ones bodies.
Again, I feel sorry for you. You’re wrong in so many ways. First let me just trace your steps. You excoriated a person for claiming Moore’s works were propaganda because they weren’t derived from an institutional structure. Now if you had only meant it in a relative sense then there’s no reason for rejecting that classification. You could have said well is propaganda but isn’t as bad as institutional propaganda but isntead you definitively said ‘his movies AREN’T propaganda’. You realize saying some isn’t propaganda thereby means that it just doesn’t fit under the subset of that word right. I mean you were pretty unambiguous. It wasn’t like you were like well it isn’t institutional propaganda which is more pernicious (which is arguable on a case by case basis) but instead you went for the whole home run. So don’t try to lie your way out of this—that’s the beauty of the internet, your exact words are right there.
Then you tried to say well I mean propaganda in the institutional sense or propaganda that doesn’t come from a singular source which you believe exonerates Moore from the label. You then proceed to highlight the fact that propaganda can be the systematic dissemination of information which shows that the burden is still upon you depending on the definition of systematic. Systematic in the links provided again has multiple definitions most of which only require some type of order or methodology, again allowing Moore to fall under as a subset of propaganda.
As a last grap from what i can tell, though its so illogical i’m not sure you’re making the argument, you’re apparently trying to claim system doesn’t mean a singular source despite the fact that in its own defintion you’ve just posted it refers to a ‘group of items’ forming a UNIFIED WHOLE (hint hint: singular source). Now this is already hilarious, but i’m assuming youre saying that the group of items can only be a set of sources, but that’s again not true, as an item can also just refer to bits of information or scenes or well just about anything because the defintion of item is : http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary 1 obsolete : WARNING, HINT 2 : a distinct part in an enumeration, account, or series : ARTICLE 3 : an object of attention, concern, or interest 4 : a separate piece of news or information 5 : a couple in a romantic or sexual relationship
So again, you come up completely empty handed. A set of interconnected items forming a unified whole can in fact just be separate pieces of news or information which Moore’s movies are constructed off.
Sorry, but again the burden is on you to plainly prove that somehow a singular source is not propaganda.
As for historical accounts, I’ve again given you refernces to alternative definitions of propaganda in the past and aside from that your initial Moore isn’t propaganda argument wasn’t a historically based one but instead a definitional one.
Who I’m sure is grateful for your even-handed, un-emotionally charged responses. As they stand in such contrast to my drivel.
A unified whole made up of multiple parts (these could be independent, loosely dependent, or high dependent). For example, a mechanical system made up of levers, pullys, ballasts, rope, etc.. are all separate items, serving independent purposes, but when put together, achieve a common goal. And this has been my f*cking point all along! that the most commonly accepted examples and connotations of propaganda indeed refer to what you’re qualifying as “institutional propaganda”
It’s simple because the effectiveness of the systemization is directly preportional to how loosely dependent (or even independent) the components are in terms of origin (when we’re talking about a socio-political system, and not a scientific one), but how highly correlated they are in terms of content. So the viewer/consumer will more likely be fooled into thinking: because these independent sources are saying the same thing, it must be true. If someone has it already lodged into his brain that Michael Moore = liar, then any propagandizing effort is nipped in the bud.
at the very least I have shown that the majority definitions and instances of propaganda imply more than one source, coagulated together. Your insistence on arguing definitions and other tangential points, is just an attempt to distract from the central point, so let’s cut the bullshit, and how about you answer my question (posed in #283)?
Provide me a historical account where some activity, piece of work, set of works by a singular person was regarded as propaganda, and did not arise or exist as a component of what you qualify as “institutional propaganda” No, I don’t want alternate definitions that define propaganda as a pink cow or whatever, give me an actual historical example – this is what I meant by “provide your proof”
If you did that earlier in the mess of shit above, then humor my infantile and slow mind and do it again. You owe it to your constituents, who are ardently depending on you to defend their meek, fragile sensibilities that I’ve excoriated so ruthlessly. Don’t do it for me, I’m too far gone the dark path, do it for them, they still have a chance.
You’re almost there, I’m waiting for it now, what the definition of the words “is” is.
The newspaper headline wasn’t a fake, it was an opinion piece, with the date was changed. Which while unecessary, is not tantamount to “faking”
Lockheed martin is the largest defense contractor in the US. His footage implied the satellite launch vehicles transported through Colorado, were attack weapons, which they are not. but again, a diversion from the central point that moore was making in that sequence connecting the Columbine killer’s proclivity towards violence, with this countries proclivity towards violence.
If you understood the concept and process of documentary filmmaking, you’d understand that editing footage to push your point of view, not changing fundamental facts, is the bread and butter of the entire artform. It’s not meant to be balanced journalism, nor does it claim to be. The rockets transported through colorado were missiles, they were EELVs and not missles shot from jets, but Moore never claimed they were, he just didn’t stop you from making that assumption. If you have a problem with that, then you have a problem with documentaries as a whole.
But the problem is that he and other non-experts (in different content delivery methods: Books, TV, Print, Internet) are trying to pass it off as such. Just because there isn’t an outright claim that it isn’t balanced journalism doesn’t mean that there isn’t and undercurrent for acceptance as such. Especially when you get into the realm of a documentary/film/piece that have a political point, it may be a slice of the picture, however it can’t be passed off as THE truth.
There was an article floating around on Yahoo News this weekend which talked about this, and other factors that affect healthcare. Among them were the availability of doctors and nurses, with serious shortages in both being predicted for the future, the ability of domestic medical schools to provide the requisite numbers to ensure enough health service personnel are available (supply) to meet demand (not enough schools/slots), the overall approach to healthcare that is emphasized in western medicine vs a holistic preventative approach, etc.
You’ve kept attacking me for my personal preferance of disliking MM and been dismissive of anyone really who believes the product he’s putting out there, beyond the facts he highlights, isn’t designed to coopt the viewer into what he believes the truth is based on those highlighted facts. People disagree with his version of the truth, even if the facts represented are correct. A fact is just that, a fact. The truth is far more complicated.
I haven’t disagreed with Sicko’s basic premise (from what I’ve read here and been told from others) that the American system is ass backwards, it’s always been the solution to how one can fix it, with which I have an issue. When a failure in the system is recognized, why is for every problem one sees, the answer is [insert government here], particularly on a federal level the answer? Especially given the American landscape, when the practicality of implementing such a system poses serious issues? Plus, I prefer to learn from some more comprehensive sources than a movie. It’s a bit too advanced for random, run of the mill, unsophisticated, simple minded, caveman guju as myself.
In conclusion: Anyone who questions Michael Moore’s version of the truth (not necessarily individual facts) or is simply turned off by his caustic approach, does not understand the documentary format, is simple minded, blind, and a supporter of right wing idiots like Coulter and Hannity.
Well, books, print and internet are mediums that allow for much more factual backup and information to be given. A feature film is constrianed to certain lengths and cannot open new lines of discussion and only discuss them in a cursory way, even the Michael Moore rebuttal films (Celsius 4.11, Fahrenhype 911, Michael Moore Hates America) are susceptible to the same criticisms they levy against Michael Moore.
And in no place does Michael Moore claim he’s a balanced journalist.
I agree here, instead of saying “his version of the truth” I just say, “his opinion”
You said it, not me.
Seriously though, I do believe many people misunderstand what documentaries are, and how they’re envisioned in a general sense, with or without MM. In film schools, they teach that in many ways the suspension of disbelief and manipulative nature is higher in docs than narratives.
And I really didnt say anything about supporting Ann or Hannity, but those that have seek to discredit Moore usually have a vested interest beyond a simple “he’s caustic” or “I’m seeking the truth” reason.