[thechat] Michael Moore's message

[aardvark]

and i'm not even *on* this list...

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

but of course... what fun would it be to do otherwise?

and by creative snipping, we can always change the context of the 
original post, too.... one of these days i should try that...

>>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.

if you'd like, i can... i wrote a paper on this in college because i 
was so frustrated that a documentary instructor in my media study 
program was hornswaggled by something that just *smacked* of 
manipulation...

you can also look for reviews online... while generally positive, 
most from well after the movie's release acknowledge the 
manipulation of the timeline and the jumbling of facts...

>>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.

right...

>$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.

absolutely... but that's not the point he made... read on...

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

that's nice... you did get the part sgd posted, though, right?  they 
have a lot of expenses covered...

>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...

i'll leave that one alone (heh)

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

actually, what's general about mine?  he said that until recently, 
first year pilots made very little... then he related an anecdotal 
story with nothing to back it up...

i've cite salary rates and the fact that first-year pilots don't fly 
planes... at least not as he categorizes...

you've been sucked into the emotional aspect... the facts say his 
assertion about their salary is close... the facts say his assertion 
about them flying is off... he cites no sources for his facts...

so, who's being general?

>>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?

he had said that we love to pick on "A-rabs"... if that were the 
case, why weren't these non-whites reported to the FBI when they 
signed up?  is it possible that they were treated like citizens?  i'm 
only challenging his assertion that we've branded this a foreign 
terrorist action simply out of racism -- which is such a cop-out on 
his part it's not even funny...

>>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.

that's also the public's fault for believing it, electing those people, 
and even ignoring the facts when they come out... but every time 
we catch this happening, we do try to find ways to prevent it in the 
future... much better than many other nations...

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

read my post to martin... the general gist is that the US policy was 
enacted "in the best interest of the american people"... good idea, 
generally poor implementation... since the best interests of us isn't 
always the best interest of anyone else... and it's so open to 
interpretation as well....

>>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

again, do we blame the nation, or people responsible for the acts?

on top of that, do *you* know exactly *what* happened under those 
circumstances?  isn't there plenty of evidence in the past of media 
manipulation?  didn't Iraq paint hospital symbols on ammo dumps 
and say we bombed people?  do you believe him over the soldiers 
who witnessed it, and reported him to be lying?

it's hard for me to:
- judge everything i see when it's clearly from a biased source
- blame an entire nation for the actions of a few zealots

otherwise i suspect i'd suggest we turn the middle east into glass...

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

did i say that?

>>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.

it's rhetorical... i thought you would sense it...

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

again, this is my opinion... also the opinion of many others, too... 
but again, let me dig up that paper and see if that satisfies you in 
any way....

>>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.

yeah, so i can't challenge it?

and i can't remind people that he has lied in the past?

or frame his comments as just generic bashing (you snipped some 
of that, too)?

>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.

oh, well, ok...

i can do that...

you want it double-spaced?  RTF?  what format?

because, friend, he's got *lots* of that to his credit...

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

well, you have to decide if i have any credibility on your own... i 
really don't care which way you go, but the facts are pretty clear on 
him...

>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.

i would completely agree...

although i challenge that he has any theatrical ability, too...

>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.

yeah, well, that's moot here, isn't it?