Moore Watch

... news... opinion... bush report... gorewatch... comedy... site map... us...

"Rabble-Rouser's" New Film Includes "Slippery Logic, Tendentious Grandstanding, And Outright Demagoguery."
By A. O. SCOTT, New York Times 10.11.02
Caution. These excerpts from Scott's review are not meant to be balanced and have been selected to point up those issues about Michael Moore that we have focused upon since last Spring. --Politex
Michael Moore's new documentary, "Bowling for Columbine," rapturously greeted at the Cannes Film Festival in May, opens today in New York City and Los Angeles in an atmosphere of intense political polarization. Not that Mr. Moore, a cheerful rabble-rouser and author of the best seller "Stupid White Men," would have it any other way. But in times of political anxiety and global insecurity — most times, in other words — arguments have a tendency to turn into shouting matches.
The most disappointing — and the most likely — response to Mr. Moore's disturbing, infuriating and often very funny film would be uncritical support from his ideological friends and summary dismissal from his foes. The slippery logic, tendentious grandstanding and outright demagoguery on display in "Bowling for Columbine" should be enough to give pause to its most ardent partisans....
Why do Americans shoot one another so much more often than the citizens of other developed countries? Why do our lives seem to be governed by fear? The recent string of killings around Washington provides a grim reminder that these issues are always timely.
These are hardly simple questions, and Mr. Moore vacillates between acknowledging their complexity and giving in to his own urge to simplify. He dismisses a number of possible answers out of hand. Is violent popular culture to blame? No, because in a country like Japan, with a tiny fraction of our gun deaths, people consume super-brutal movies, video games and comic books with even more voracity than we do. Poverty? No, since Canada and many European nations have much higher unemployment rates and much lower homicide rates. Is it our history of warfare and brutality? Compared with imperial Britain and Nazi Germany, he suggests, we're downright pacific.
But each of these assertions rides roughshod over some obvious doubts and qualifications. Unemployment, in countries with more extensive welfare states than ours, is not necessarily the same as poverty, and the wholesale brutality of states and empires engaged in wars of conquest is not the same as the retail mayhem of armed individuals.
But though he seems to be hunting for a specific historical cause for events like Columbine, Mr. Moore, when it serves his purposes, is happy to generalize in the absence of empirical evidence and to make much of connections that seem spurious on close examination. Several times he notes that the Columbine shootings occurred on the same day as the heaviest United States bombing of the Kosovo war. The more you think about this coincidence, the less it seems to mean.
He visits a Lockheed Martin plant near Columbine that manufactures missiles and pesters a company flack about the links between the factory's products and the shootings. "I guess I don't see that connection," the man says, standing in front of the company's wares. Mr. Moore and the camera clearly take him for a fool: another stupid white man doing his job. But you don't have to be a big fan of nuclear weapons to think that he might have a point.
This exchange is followed by a montage, accompanied by Louis Armstrong singing "What a Wonderful World," of American foreign policy misdeeds from the 1950's to the present. Their relevance is, again, arguable, but by now it should be clear that Mr. Moore is less interested in argument than in provocation. The last image is of the airplanes smashing into the World Trade Center, accompanied by this text: "Sept. 11, 2001: Osama bin Laden uses his expert C.I.A. training to murder 3,000 people."
The idiocy of this statement is hardly worth engaging; it is exactly the kind of glib distortion of history that can be taken as a warrant to dismiss everything Mr. Moore has to say. And this is a shame, since much of the movie is worth engaging, and manifests genuine curiosity and a wicked satirical sense along with finger-pointing self-righteousness....
Mr. Moore's less admirable traits cannot be ignored, even — and especially — if you find merit in some of his views. The film seems to reach a natural conclusion when Mr. Moore, accompanied by two boys wounded at Columbine, visits Kmart's corporate headquarters to demand that the company stop selling ammunition. (The high school killers bought their bullets in one of its stores.) But Mr. Moore, unable to forgo another chance to prove his moral superiority, ends the film with a visit to Charlton Heston's house.
You can be repelled by Mr. Heston's actions as president of the National Rifle Association — he is shown addressing pro-gun rallies that took place in the wake of the school shootings in both Littleton and Flint, Mich. — and still find Mr. Moore's tactics distasteful. His tendency to scapegoat may satisfy his need for drama, but it makes for lousy politics.

8888
Michael Moore "has a way of referring to "rich white people" as if he weren't one of them....Moore as a suffering Christ [is] an insult to his own movie, which at its considerable best transcends his thuggish personality."

Michael Moore Works To Give Bush Senate Control
Michael Moore has a new plan to help Bush take back control of the Senate. With both Senate and House control, the president select could then have a much better chance of getting more tax cuts for the rich; further dismantling funding to poor kids, those on welfare, and seniors; and rolling back environmental protection laws, to name a few Bush goals. Moore's plan is to get readers of his web site to sign a pledge. It reads, "I pledge to never vote again for any Democratic candidate for public office who has voted in favor of George Bush's war in Iraq." While we think it's a good idea not to vote for a war in Iraq, our contention has always been that voting numbers and trends on the state and federal level are such that not voting for Dem candidates in the '02 and '04 elections are actually votes for Bush. From the hundreds of Green Party letters we've received since voicing this position, it's pretty clear that both Moore and the Green Party are more interested in defeating the Dems than they are in defeating Bush. We find this selfish and short-sighted, but typical of those who focus more on party and self than they do on the nation's people they pretend to serve. --Jerry Politex, Oct. 6, 2002

MICHAEL MOORE'S GREEN PARTY POLITICS AS USUAL
The Green Party's Michael Moore claims on his web site that he has gotten 40,000 visiters to sign what he calls a "Peace Pledge." Here it is: "I pledge to never vote again for any Democratic candidate for public office who has voted in favor of George Bush's war in Iraq." As you can see, it's not a peace pledge at all, it's an anti-Democrat pledge. If it were a peace pledge, one would think that it would be directed against Republican candidates for public office as well, since the Republican Party is sponsoring the Bush war bill and Bush is a Republican, not a Democrat. Moore and the Green Party are just playing politics as usual, trying to pick up a few more votes by working a divisive issue. Nothing unusual here, both the Repugs and the Dems are doing it as well. But many folks thought Michael Moore and the Green Party were above such shenanigans. Of course, many other folks think Bush is doing just fine. Meanwhile, not only are Moore and the Green Party working hard to remove key Dems who support progressive social issues through tactics such as "peace" petitions, but they're also working hard to give Bush control of Congress next month, setting the stage for four more years of Bush. If you have trouble with that last sentence, please read this before sharing your thoughts with me. --Politex, October 9, 2002

Background: Working-class hero to zero a view from Vancouver.

This is typical of the left to choose the cloud over the silver lining. I find it humorously ironic that Moore uses Limbaugh's agent, I mean, that's funny! And why not use the tools that work? We already know that we never get anywhere without access to money and if Moore creates a better life for his family through (gasp) making money, it seems he'll have more time and resources to fight the right, right? Give us a break. While pointing out the truth is never wrong, I ask how we can expect any progressive movement when we just shoot ourselves in the foot. Hey, I voted for Gore too but I sure wished he'd moved closer to Nader's politics. Now that I know what some bitter Dems think I feel much less loyalty toward those pushing sour grapes, and I don't want to feel like that. Moore is a step in the right (left) direction. let's not sling arrows. Sheesh. -Kerry Swinney (Part of that Vancouver crowd that got in to hear Michael Moore) Vancouver BC
Politex,
I have been reading your web site daily for the past year and a half - I thought I could find one Web site to get honest news information. You are now attacking Michael Moore -- which is wrong. I am now second guessing your Web site's agenda. I will now read the BBC and Gardian directly for news that reports the facts. Good-bye.

***
Reading the BBC and Guardian first-hand sounds like a good idea to me, but it has little to do with Bush Watch, one way or the other. I am not "attacking" Michael Moore, but it's clear some of the people who have supported him in the past are upset with him. On the other hand, some of the people we have posted are supporting Michael Moore, and Bush Watch was one of the first to post articles about this Spring's Rolling Thunder political meetings, of which he is a part. One way of the other, I don't think your respons has anything to do with "facts," since you don't call us to task for a single "fact." Further, I have no idea from your note why you think posting something negative about Michael Moore is, by definition, "wrong." Unlike the rest of us, is Michael Moore behond reproach? The bottom line, then, is if you can't take anything negative about what you believe in, you will stop reading anything from that source. However, that would include the BCC, the Guardian, the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. Thus, why you pick on Bush Watch and think you will get your "facts" from similar sources is beyond me. Should I "second guess" YOUR agenda? thanks and best wishes, jerry politex

Isn't it bad enough that the Right wing nuts pollute the airwaves and media outlets on a daily basis with virulent lies and hate mongering of Left Wing advocates. Now we have Bush Watch feeding on its own kind...... LEAVE MICHAEL MOORE ALONE !!!! No Wonder the Republican nut jobs run the country...progressives are too busy feeding on their own. A VERY disappointed reader.
Brian Glennon
San Francisco

*** Thanks for your response, Brian, but, hey, I don't live in a million dollar apt. in N.Y., send my kids to private school, have my presentations booked by Rush Limbaugh's agent, and claim to represent the working class after having worked on an auto assembly line for one day. Based on Matthew Mallon's report of Moore's visit to Vancouver, pehaps "Roger and Me" has become "Me, Roger." Mallon's report, by the way, is strikingly similar to one we ran a month or so ago by another disappointed Moore backer who experienced similar Moore marketing skills first hand. At any rate, I'm sure you'll agree that Moore shares the responsibility for having those "Republican nut jobs" you allude to run the country in that he told pretty nasty lies about Al Gore during the Presidential race as he tried to help Nader could get 5% of the vote. He's said nothing thus far that would indicate a change of heart, has he? Let me assure you, Brian, Bush Watch is not feeding on its own kind by calling your attention to the Canadian reporter's story about Michael Moore. On the other hand, perhaps you'll feel more comfortable with the following report on Moore's visit to Vancouver by Bush Watch contributor Lisa Kadonaga. --Politex, April 30, 2002
Michael Moore Visits Vancouver, April 23, 2002
by Lisa Kadonaga
The good news is -- despite delays crossing on the ferry from Swartz Bay, I managed to get to the Vogue Theatre on Granville Street by 5:30, when they were starting to hand out the (free) tickets to see Michael Moore. The bad news is -- the back of the lineup was in front of the theatre. It literally went around the block, three or four abreast. Comparing notes later with another onlooker, we estimated that even though the Vogue's capacity was about 1100 people, they made it only halfway down the line, doling out one ticket per person, before they had to turn people away.
This is quite a good turnout, considering that 1) there was a major hockey game in town that night, and 2) many of the students at the colleges and universities have already finished their exams and left town to work or travel. From what I've heard, this kind of response is typical of Moore appearances, so if he's coming to your town, be sure to leave plenty of time if you want a seat.
Although I didn't get in to see the main part of Mike's talk, there were at least sixty of us still outside the theatre when he arrived, and we managed to sing a (surprisingly on-key) rendition of "Happy Birthday" (he turned 48 today). Mike spent a few minutes out there, answering questions and signing books. I've heard that in other cities, he's done something similar, because he feels bad about people coming all that way and not being able to get inside. (Others told me that they'd driven several hours, from places like Mission and Chilliwack, and I doubt I was the only one there from Vancouver Island.) He mentioned that this was the 46th city on his "Stupid White Men" tour, and he had been in Oregon and Washington earlier that week. He sounded a bit hoarse, but seemed to be holding up pretty well, joking with the spectators that "only the people who had no life would arrive early enough to get tickets" -- and that in any other situation, he'd be out there on the pave! ment with us, "the slacker nation".
Mike's talk lasted just over two hours. I'd guess that he showed some video, possibly from the new movie he's working on, because when I slipped inside as people were leaving during the question-and-answer session afterwards, the computerized projection system was still on.
He talked with the crowd for at least another half-hour, noting that based on what he'd seen while touring through more than a dozen states this year, "the US is starting to get a clue". He believes that the post-September goodwill that the White House received, from fellow Americans as well as from other countries, has been "abused by Bush and his cronies", citing Enron as only one example. He said it's become evident that the agenda of this administration "is not the agenda of average Americans", who are far more sympathetic to liberal ideas than the corporate elite who now control the government. When one audience member asked him if he believed that Bush would be re-elected in 2004, Mike answered in the negative. He's hoping that the Democrats will call for a special prosecutor to investigate the linkages between Enron and the administration, and that both Bush and Cheney will be forced out of office.
In response to a question about what he thought of the untimely death of James Hatfield, author of "Fortunate Son" (a critical look at the life of George W. Bush) -- Mike noted that someone at every appearance so far has asked about this. Most of the audience appeared to be unfamiliar with the Hatfield story (give us a break, we're Canadians!), so rather than go into details, Mike told us that he was encouraged to see that Hatfield's work is not being forgotten. (Apparently somebody -- though not him -- is working on a documentary based on this book.) He added, only partly in jest, that he is extremely grateful for the "protective force field of librarians" who raised enough of a ruckus when the publisher (Harper Collins) threatened to destroy copies of "Stupid White Men" after Mike refused to rewrite the book, to make it less critical of the Bush administration.
One spectator said she was losing hope that things will turn around, but Mike remained upbeat to the end, insisting that people have already begun turning around, both in Canada and the US -- "it's up to us to organize them". As proof, he noted that except for a late-night appearance on Bill Mahar's show, he hasn't appeared on the main broadcast (non-cable) networks yet, and has not received much attention from the mainstream print media -- but "Stupid White Men" managed to reach the top spot on the New York Times bestseller list regardless, due at least in part to word-of-mouth, Internet discussions, and the alternative media.
Various people asked him for advice on what could be done, about general political action as well as the specific situation in British Columbia (where the right-wing "BC Liberals" hold 76 out of 79 seats in the provincial legislature). Mike urged people to put their money where their mouths are -- get politically active, even running for office themselves if they can't find anyone they can get behind. He cited his own experience as an 18-year-old high school senior, who campaigned for and won a seat on his school board in Flint, Michigan. He believes it's possible for a relatively small group of progressives to exert a major influence on the local scale, because the turnout for political party meetings is usually small. (I've noticed this too -- many riding associations may have only a couple of dozen active members who are running the organization, and this is even more true for provincial/state and municipal politics.)
Mike announced that he's donating his cut of any books sold during this tour (which he estimated at about 10-12$ of the cover price) to charities, such as organizations that are providing social support to the laid-off workers in his hometown of Flint. Given that British Columbia is reeling from a wave of layoffs in the public, forestry, and high-tech sectors, the crowd applauded this news. They also cheered when he told them he'd be back for the Vancouver International Film Festival later this year.
At this rate, somebody had better put dibs on BC Place, because they're going to need a bigger venue.
I hung around after the crowd had left -- Mike stayed in the lobby, gamely signing books, videos, and DVD's, even though he must have been exhausted. After having escorted a friend on book tour a few years ago, I know it can be gruelling. (I used to believe that I'd never wish this fate on another human being, but I might make an exception for high-ranking members of the Bush Administration.) It says a lot about Michael Moore, that he'd spend his birthday among strangers, with his publisher not exactly providing lavish support for this tour. I got to talk with him, briefly -- he smiled when I handed him a copy of his "Roger and Me" video, and when he heard that it was a gift for a friend whom I'd met through his website (www.michaelmoore.com), he not only signed it but wrote her name and "Librarians Rule!"