Stupid White Men by Michael Moore

This thread is in semi response to the Slander by Anne Coulter thread. The purpose is to discuss the book Stupid White Men, and the validity of the statements made within.

Personally I think the book is delightful. The chapter entitled 'Idiot Nation', about the horrid condition our educational system is in. Other favs are 'Kill Whitey' and 'We're Number One!'

So what do you think of this venerable source of humor and analyses?

 

Mike Moore is a buffoon, and 'Stupid White Men' is filled to the brim with factual errors.

http://www.spinsanity.org/columns/20020403.html

 

If you could site some spicifics tha'd be great. To which parts of the book are you reffering? And why do you belive he is a baffoon?

 

I would strongly suspect that Red Seven's belief that Michael Moore is a buffoon, might just have something to do with their respective political stances. Moore represents the best of American liberalism, and is an outspoken critic of the many injustices in US society. As red seven also believes Noam Chomsky, an internationally renowned expert on the evolution of language, and one of the most perceptive commentators on world events is next to useless, it's fair to say I can detect a touch of political bias at work.
I rate Moore right up there with Pilger, what he lacks in gravitas he makes up in wit, and it's a real shame we see so little of him on UK tv. Bring him back channel 4.

 

Michael Moore is frickin' hilarious. "Roger & Me" was a brutal and pretty acurate (I currently live in Michigan) portrayal of the decay in Flint. I thought "The Big One" wasn't nearly as sharp and pointed, but still fun. I haven't gotten "White Men" yet, but intend to. It's always good to see someone willing to tell us that the emperor has no clothes, even IF he has his own agenda for doing so!

 

Political bias has a part. Moore has some examples of biting satire that anyone can appreciate.

However, looking at his recent body of work, egoism, and distinct fact-skewing in order to advance his agenda, he loses credibility.

The Spinsanity article I cited points out numerous problems with the book, which Moore avoided for months. I don't know htat he's ever issued a correction or faced the critics, other than to try to label them as conservative wackos (which, as anyone who reads spinsanity regularly knows, they are *NOT*).

Also, these quotes really made me feel confident distrusting him and his agenda-fueled wit ad infinitum:

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"--Michael Moore, Michaelmoore.com, September 12


"It dishonors [the dead] and their families to so callously crank up the greed machine within days of this tragedy. Their bodies--thousands of them--are still buried under the rubble down the street, but, hey, why wait to give them a proper burial--let's get busy making some money! I can only hope that the stench from the rotting corpses of their former employees will haunt them for the rest of the day and remain in their consciences for the days to come."--Michael Moore, MichaelMoore.com, September 17.


http://www.spinsanity.org/post.html?2002_06_23_archive.html#85204379

and more, and more, and more.


As far as Chomsky, I have no problem with his work as a linguist, as I am certainly not as intelligent as him nor qualified to offer criticism in that field. Chomsky's role as an international commentator, though, is as one who looks through a pre-defined lense and shapes events to his notions. Chomsky carries zero credibility with me as an international commentator.

 

It's not at all surprising that you feel that way Red-Seven. Tell me, what is it that you despise so much about people that critisize injustices in the US?

 

I really like this guy.He has been very honest about American issues in the past and is a guy who tells it how it really is.He was really on top form yesterday on question time.
I have for a while intended to find out more about Michael Moore,and i definatley want to read his books !!!

 

Because half of his criticism is fake. Because he's a shill, or an egoist, and he's bigger than the issues and injustices he attacks.

Of course, I could turn your same condescension around. [sarcasm] Geee, it's such a surprise that you love and trust and admire and believe and defend a commentator who criticises things in the US that fall into your preconceived notions. [/sarcasm]

You're no better than me. And you haven't countered the factual errors I've pointed out, either.


forgot about lilek's screed:

...His latest book is ?Lazy Black Men,? a blistering indictment of fatherless inner-city culture. No, wait, sorry, that?s a book by some hate-filled racist, published by Death to Zog Press. Moore?s book is ?Stupid White Men,? a blistering indictment of fellow multimillionaires who behave in ways Mr. Moore finds objectionable. It?s apparently selling well, and good for him; I always enjoy seeing class warriors kicked into the 38% tax bracket. For all I know it's brilliant, but I?ve no interest in it - I long ago tired of that cute little ain't I a stinker? grin on his dust-jackets. What moved him from the irrelevant category to the Beyond-the-Pale category was his remarkable reaction after 9/11, in which he anguished that the terrorists hit New York - a city that didn?t vote for Bush! See, if you?re a secretary, prep cook, receptionist or janitor who lives in a state that went for Bush by one percent, it?s certainly horrible that you die a flaming death or get crushed beneath 110 stories of cascading rubble, but there?s some sort of cosmic karma at work.

Stupid dead people.

He?s been doing a book tour, writing a web diary about the trip, which reads like a brave account of Lenin?s train ride through the dark nightmare of Czarist Russia combined with a selfless philanthropy that makes Mother Theresa look like Monty Burns. The last entry had this priceless tidbit:

?...it is already outrageous enough to be charging $24.95 for a book (a good way to keep the masses ignorant and not reading if there ever was one).?

There?s Moore in a nutshell. We have ?the masses,? that big doughy heap of sodden proles, heads bent from their daily lashing by The Man, wondering if they?ll have enough left over after they?ve paid off Consolidated Coal and Gruel so they can pool pennies with the rest of the tenants of State Housing Block 432 and buy a copy of Moore?s book - they say a light shines from the pages when you open it! Brother Sam was reading it at the Borders before the police beat him with clubs for browsing, and now he can cure your chilblains just by describing the book?s typeface!

Anyway. Tales from his book tour have been making the rounds - his account of one reading made it seem as if the local constabulary got in touch with their inner Bull Conners and busted up his brave little conclave; another report noted that the police came because the hall was supposed to close and the poor janitor just wanted to clean up and get some sleep. (An email published in the NRO Corner - scroll down to the Wednesday entres -- details Moore?s effenhiemer-laced reply to a fan dismayed by news accounts of the event. Judge for yourselves.)

Several kind readers emailed me this interview in the Arcata CA newspaper, excerpts of which follow.

Motivation, he said, is key, with discontent providing that motivation. "I'm so pissed off," Moore said, inspiring cheers. Moore encouraged everyone who who shared that feeling to combat oppression.

Discontent: the sign of a Serious Person. If you?re Deep and Real and Concerned with the way things are, you?re pissed off. Unless you?re angry about taxes, race-based government policies and the inefficiencies of the public education system, in which case you

 

You seem to have a lot of pent up anger against this man...has he in any way harmed you personnaly, or are you just unable to civily accept the opionins of others if they happen to contirdict yours?

 

I suggest you edit out the profanity in that long post.

 

He's a dithering fanatic, who thinks its appropriate to equate who voted for who (when 55% of the eligible population voted, making the thing a scam regardless IMHO) with the 9/11 tragedy. He's one of those defensive malcontents who makes a name for themself by bellowing uninteligible rants with little factual support or support fallaciously presented. I think the country would be better with out Moore's kind who do this to make money and then accuse others of making money.

 

As far as the partisan nature of my reply, there are many on the left that I admire (Rushdie, Hitchens, Marshall, etc). And many on the Right that I despise. Pigeon-holing me is a bad idea.


And I'm not nearly as sick of Moore as Lileks or others, simply because I ignore him. People gushing about him draws my ire, though, as is obvious.

So, other than calling me uncivil, do you have any reply to the quotes he has made that I have posted as an indictment, or the factual errors spinsanity has exposed?

 

Hey, I concide that the 9/11 comments were a little (okay, a hell of a long way) off base, and that some of the facts he uses to back up his claims are skewed and biased, and of course his refusal to see the other sides arguments are all legitimite gripes. But the main message he is trying to convey is a good one, and he's damned funny while he does it.

And besides, this isn't a thread about Michael Moore in general, but rather about a spicific pice of work done by him, and I would like to contain the discussion to that perameter.

As for the uncivil commet, I'm sorry. I was haveing a bad day and I was grumpy, and took it out on a guy I don't know, so I aploigize.

And yes, please keep the profanity out.

 

I'll give him credit that he makes it funny.

But he's still not making a) much sense, b) finding real facts, c) speaking on issues I agree with. I'd much rather read O'Reilly or someone.

 

i have yet to read this book, not sure if it has made it to NZ bookstores yet...........i have seen Moore's movies/tv shows, read some of his articles (compulsory for jurisprudence papers at my uni) and seen his documentary on 3 strikes law..........all of which i have enjoyed....suyre i don't agree with all he says, but he is still a good read for all that

 

"White Men" has been out for about a year now. I really didn't like it, but "Downsize This!" was pretty good-- funny too.

 

downsize this is pretty good.......

 

Ups, 'cuse I'm bored.

 

I have to say that i did quite enjoy "Roger & Me" being from Michigan. But I think that Moore's tone has become very much off-base and not factually supported. He seems to feed off of his emtions for how he wants things to be and will say anything to arouse that emotion in others.

 

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/02/47/film-powers.php

ONE OF THE MOSQUITO-BITE IRRITAtions of being on the left is finding your ideals represented in public by Michael Moore, whose ball cap, burgeoning belly and self-promoting populism have made him an international brand name. When his documentary Bowling for Columbine played at Cannes this May, it was received with wild enthusiasm -- predictably so, for it seems to have been made to delight European intellectuals and anyone else who believes that America is a land of bloodthirsty yet comical barbarians.

...Although he'd have made a crackerjack ad man, he's a slipshod filmmaker, and the movie quickly collapses, burying its subject beneath bumper-sticker rehashes of received ideas: the demonizing of black men, fear-mongering TV news, Canada's progressive health-care system and the Bush administration's partisan use of scare tactics. At once punchy and incoherent -- Moore contradicts himself vividly every few minutes -- the film has the scattershot shapelessness of a concept album made by a singles band.

Although Moore takes delight in thumping Cops and TV newscasts, he himself uses tabloid techniques and is guilty of manipulative heartlessness: When a school principal breaks into tears, Moore sensitively puts his arm around her but keeps the camera running. Like jesting Pilate, he's so busy zooting around to keep things "entertaining" that he doesn't bother to examine any of his topics. Indeed, his idea of social analysis is to play Louis Armstrong's "What a Wonderful World" over footage of countries where the U.S. government has made war or toppled governments -- Iran, Guatemala, Nicaragua, Afghanistan, etc. -- then end his montage with shots of the planes hitting the World Trade Center. Moore doubtless believes this a trenchant political statement and that anyone who disagrees is naive, duplicitous or reactionary. In fact, what stinks about this montage isn't its suggestion that much U.S. policy has been reprehensible (it obviously has) or that such behavior is one part of the context that has triggered anti-American terrorism (ditto). The problem is the lazy historical thinking worthy of Rush Limbaugh. Does Moore really think that Osama bin Laden ever gave a damn what happened to Salvadoran campesinos? Does he really think U.S. foreign policy caused those two high school kids to gun down their schoolmates? Moore never says, but he does emphasize, that on the same day as Columbine, U.S. bombers dropped an especially heavy payload on Kosovo. So what? Absent any serious historical analysis, his implication seems to be that this country is incorrigibly murderous. You don't know whether to be outraged or yawn.

Near the end, Moore takes a bead on NRA president Charlton Heston. Flashing his membership card (Moore never discusses his own feelings about guns), he visits the actor's Beverly Hills mansion and asks Moses why he thinks there's so much gun violence in America. Heston ventures a couple of answers, but Moore isn't satisfied and keeps hectoring him until the aging Heston slowly walks off. Moore chases after him and confronts him with the photo of a 6-year-old girl who'd recently been shot in Flint. Moments later, as Moore walks down Heston's driveway, head solemnly lowered, we're obviously supposed to think him the dead girl's champion and voice -- the ball-capped, potbellied, popular representative of ordinary folks. Me, I kept thinking how dishonest Moore had been to badger a gaga old fool for failing to explain why so many Americans shoot one another when his own movie was so transparently failing to answer the same question.

 

Moore represents the best of American liberalism...

No wonder I'm conservative.

Two things Moore has done over the last two years REALLY struck me as classless. Most recently, the Heston interview in this apparent farce of a movie. Moore filmed this interview and before it was released, it was revealed that Heston is in the early stages of Alzheimer's. Did Moore then edit it out, or film an interview with another celeb who could best represent the gun rights argument, like Tom Selleck? NOPE.

But the most tacky thing (in a HUGE array of tackiness) in recent days was Moore's immediate reaction to 9/11: he was astounded that the terrorists attacked NY and DC because, after all, they voted against Bush.

The conclusion we are to draw is, what, exactly? That a terrorist attack in "red states" would have been more acceptible? OUTRAGEOUS.

Honestly, if I were a liberal, I'm sure I wouldn't tie the reputation of my idealogy to a schmuck like Moore.

 

Hey, Red-Seven, as long as you don't hate Moore while thinking Coulter is funny and inspired, it's ok with me.

 

She's an even bigger attention <beep>.

I haven't been exposed to as much of her 'writing', though.

 

>>It's always good to see someone willing to tell us that the emperor has no clothes, even IF he has his own agenda for doing so!<<

What emporer? This a REPUBLIC. We don't have any emporer here. And we don't want any.