[thechat] Michael Moore's message

Erika Meyer emeyer at lclark.edu
Fri Sep 14 16:21:12 CDT 2001


Not referring to the original essay, but about Adrian's response.

>his movie "Roger & Me" is something he calls a documentary, but
>it is far from true-to-life... he implies (or directly states)
>cause-and- effect based on inverted timelines, false information, and
>assumption...

not disagreeing with you, as you've not provided any specific 
evidence or documentation.

>in fact:
>http://www.avjobs.com/table/airsalry.htm
>Major / National Airline Pilot: $23,000 - $140,000
>Regional Airline Pilot: $16,500 - $43,000

Right.  American Eagle would be regional.

$16,500 is very close to what he quoted, and absolutely not a living 
wage for anyone in the urban US, unless he/she is a single person 
with no one to support...and even then you're pushing it.

(btw my net income is significantly less than my gross income.)

Also, I wonder why it is my own salary is always at least $10-30k 
less than the lowest amount quoted for people doing the sort of work 
I do...

You're giving general examples; he gave a specific one.

>we also now know that they were trained in schools in the US... 
>probably because those  schools don't turn away people just because 
>they aren't caucasian males...

huh?

>has the US trained terrorists in the past?  yes, we thought they
>were 'freedom fighters' on too many occasions...

That's just the doublespeak that gets sold to the public.

Freedom from what?  Ethical behavior?
Freedom for whom?  Global corporations?

>although it was always fueled by the best interests of this country --
>which have included protection of the american people...

and the torture and murder of priests, nuns, schoolteachers, and 
other civilians -- toward that end.
http://www.derechos.org/soa/elsal-not.html

Maybe what you meant "protection of US business interests"?

>mistake has been assuming that these people we train aren't evil...
>perhaps we should only train caucasian males?

there's a nice piece of flamebait.

>Michael Moore was long ago written off as a non-credible source...

documentation, please.

>his opinions are so knee-jerk, in college we used to actually guess his
>statements before he would make them...

He has a POV , opinion, a predictable political slant.
The same could be said for you or I.

What would make him wrong would be misinformation, logical fallacies, 
and things of that nature.  So to discredit him, that's what you need 
to point out.

To call him discredited, you need to point that out as well, and let 
the reader determine whether the discreditor has any credibility.

That being said, I think Moore's strengths are more in his theatrical 
ability to express an opinion, which gives him popular appeal, much 
like that of Jim Hightower.

In contrast, someone like Chomsky will express a similar opinion, 
while being far more careful to build his case into a brick wall of 
meticulously documented evidence and logical arguments.

But Chomsky isn't as good at theatrics or sound-bites, and so has 
less of a popular appeal.

Erika

-- 




More information about the thechat mailing list