The single greatest asset, and indeed only legitimate premise, of Moore’s “Fahrenheit 9/11″ is that it publicizes the coercive, grim face of the inevitable impoverishment that is the result of warfare. It investigates the rapid growth of the United States government and its trend of trampling the rights of individuals, and the corporatism that is spawned out of the close ties between big government and big business, especially in wartime. However, these undeniable strengths of the film are also its greatest weaknesses, for Moore focuses his efforts on the conservative Bush administration instead of addressing the crux of the matter: the institution of government itself. [Full Article]
Source link: http://archive.mises.org/2296/michael-moore-and-freedom/
Michael Moore and Freedom
Previous post: Jörg Guido Hülsmann Leaves for France
Next post: A Man For All Seasons
{ 34 comments }
Who are the people and investors behind Moore? He can’t accomplish a film and distribution by himself. So,who supports him? And why?
I would think that Democrats with deep pockets fund him. What’s ironic about it is that my sister in law saw the movie, came out hating Bush, and I directed her to the Nolan political quiz, and she responded with surprise to find out she was a libertarian.
While Mr. Moore is on this topic, why doesn’t he investigate the following: World War I and President Wilson; World War II and President Roosevelt; the initiation of the Cold War and the Korean War, and President Truman; and, the Vietnam War and Presidents Kennedy and Johnson. Of course, a biased, full-fledged hypocrite like Moore will do no such thing, as these presidents are all Democrats, two or three of whom are icons of that party. Mr. Moore lacks the intellectual honesty and integrity to admit that our loss of freedom, especially as it has ocurred in “crises” and wars, is due to the actions of members of both major political parties.
I walked out of F9/11 shortly after the part where Moore claimed that the Saudis owned around 7% ‘of America.’ So I can’t really speak to the entirety of the film. All I can is, the section I saw suggest more of a purely audio-visual onslaught that an attack based in reason.
The whole subject of the film is a fascinating one. I am glad I got to experience the in-theatre viewing sufficiently to get a sense of how reason and sensory-overload are in tension. I will have to rent the forthcoming DVD to say more about this subject–this film may be a perfect one for Aesthetics courses, along with Triumph of the Will.
Since so much of my work in aesthetics is about how artistic beauty improves cognition, I like to spend a lot of time with my students emphasizing how the merely beautiful and/or the merely rhetorical can mislead. There will be a lot to think about in this regard with Moore’s film, just as there was with ‘Triump’ and Stone’s JFK.
There are un-doubtedly possibilities for rational discourse that incorporates large-scale appeals to the senses, a la films in theatres. More interactivity would help, as would some guarantees that one is getting appropriate multiple viewpoints, not merely that of one individual. In general, though, I think the move from movie theatre to DVD will solve most of the medium-related problems here–if you can stop to a check a claim, then come back to the rest of the film, things go a lot better.
I’ve seen literally dozens of assaults on Moore’s film from a purely factual standpoint. Indeed, knocking down Moore’s falacies is quite easy–he got his facts wrong often, and distorted what details couldn’t be comletely misrepresented. It was interesting to see an assault on Moore’s film without taking a single shot at his “mistakes.” In a way, I thought that made for a much more effective refutation of the man’s propaganda flick. Documentary indeed.
Moore is a propagandist.
56 Deceits in F911
Moore Watch
Erich’s observations are excellent, and his conclusions are fair-minded.
I think we ought to call people like Moore and the Democrat Party what they truly are, Socialists, or/ Social-Communists. They believe in the use of deception and lies just as China, Russia, Germany and all other people who believe in regulated,organized, and federally directed “freedom”.
Larry
I highly encourage everyone to read the article on Moore’s 59 deceits. Though I’m no fan of Bush, and certainly no fan of the war, many of the things were deceptions (the one honest part was showing those who were mistreated and murdered by the US attack). For example, he says that members of the Taliban came to Texas to see Bush; what he didn’t say is that Bush refused to see them.
I’m also no fan of any of the Kennedy’s, but Moore gravely mis-represented one of them, making him appear to be bewildered and defensive in the section where he asked Congressmen if they wanted their sons to be sent to Iraq:
Kennedy, when asked if he would be willing to send his son to Iraq, responded by stating that he had a nephew who was en-route to Afghanistan. He went on to inform Moore that his son was thinking about a career in the navy and that two of his nephews had already served in the armed forces. Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive…So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy just stupidly looked at Moore, Kennedy agreed to help Moore.
Libertarians can do better than the point to this half-baked socialist’s lies.
Kopel’s arcticle is excellent, and about 42 meticulous pages long; and certainly amongst us we’ve all read Christopher Hitchens’ wholly negative verdict on the film and Paul Krugman’s duplicitous one, but there’s also an incicive viewing of the reviews themselves by Irfan Khawaja of ISIS which I would link but I’m on Netscape so:
http://www.secularislam.org/articles/khawaja20.htm
I highly recommend it.
All I can say about Moore is that he’s a Democratic Socialist – and unrepentantly so. If he became any more socialist, I think he’d turn red.
I could care less whether or not he is a Republican, Democrat, Anti-War, or Pro-War. The fact of the matter is that he’s off limits, at least to anyone who’s truly interested in liberty, and not his lies.
How sad to hear the regurgitation of RNC sliming of Moore on this board. There is little in his film that I haven’t heard in past decades from traditional conservatives. Laughingly, he is called a Socialist, the modern meaning which is that he opposes republicans and little more.
The article of the 59 deceits is filled with errors. I like that it is declared that knocking down his facts is quite easy, yet nobody has done it.
Why are there so few libertarians who comment on this board?
It’s unfortunate that irrational hatred, intentional dishonesty and misrepresentation are now the tools used in deferrence to honest debate and civil discourse. I personally find Mr. Moore disgusting, and would not consider paying him one red cent to see his distorted views. So, no I have not seen f9/11, nor do I intend to. I know all I need to know about it, and viewing it would grant it credibility, which I refuse to do. In this great contest of ideas we cherish as liberty, Moore has proven himself a fraud, and those who fall for his claptrap need to get an education. Unfortunately, with public education as it is, many will never see his distortions for what they are, because kids especially are not taught how to intellectualize any particular subject. The dumbing-down of America is becoming more evident with every dollare Moore drags in.
Hey justpete, you’re one of those useful idiots who will apologize for the leftist liars regardless of the mendacious tripe they espouse. I want you to justify this:
Newspaper Says Moore Film Used Fake Front
(http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040730/ap_en_mo/people_michael_moore_1)
The (Bloomington) Pantagraph newspaper in central Illinois has sent a letter to Moore and his production company, Lions Gate Entertainment Corp., asking Moore to apologize for using what the newspaper says was a doctored front page in the film, the paper reported Friday. It also is seeking compensatory damages of $1.
A scene early in the movie that shows newspaper headlines related to the legally contested presidential election of 2000 included a shot of The Pantagraph’s Dec. 19, 2001, front page, with the prominent headline: “Latest Florida recount shows Gore won election.”
The paper says that headline never appeared on that day. It appeared in a Dec. 5, 2001, edition, but the headline was not used on the front page. Instead, it was found in much smaller type above a letter to the editor, which the paper says reflects “only the opinions of the letter writer.”
“If (Moore) wants to ‘edit’ The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job,” the paper said.
Lions Gate Entertainment did not immediately return phone calls seeking comment Friday.
—————————————-
Got anything to say to that? No? Why am I not surprised?
This smarmy slimeball and anyone who seriously buys into his pasty-faced chutzpah are the most dangerous enemies to individual liberty and private property rights right now. At best, they simply haven’t checked their own moral consistency and credibility thoroughly. They have no real fundamental moral foundation for freedom.
And every one of them are just as bad as HE is(HE being George W. Bush), if not worse.
HE goes to war in the name of “freedom” all the while providing less.(Patriot Act et al)
MOORE makes a film claiming to advocate freedom all the while suggesting a transfer of the same power to abuse to another entity which would make us all children of the state.
How this BUM got to be a filmmaker I’ll never know. He’d be much better suited to being an Ivy League professor, a writer for the New York Times, or a welfare recipient.
For someone who purportedly loathes capitalism so; it certainly hasn’t inflicted very much harm to him. Just wait till the DVD profits fill his pockets; my word!!!
Michael Moore has credibility? If I had a sense of humor, I would laugh.
Moore is a communist. What are his alterior motives?
I agree with most everything said in this article, but question a few of the ascertions made by the author and subsequent bloggers.
Moore’s film was obviously propagandist. Though, I found it to be a refreshing break from the propoganda the Bush administration has been pumping out to us the last four years (WMD, Nuclear Threat, Terror Alerts).
Nearly every point in the movie was twisted, you do not need to scream into a blog or curse Democrats as socialist communists to show that. After reading these blogs criticizing the Dems so ferociously, I wonder how all of you feel about one of our fellow super Republicans that happens to be the Attorney General? He seriously scares me and should scare any of you so called libertarians or old-school republicans. Michael Moore has no bearing on our day to day lives regarding any of our personal freedoms or possible destruction of capitalism. John Ashcroft, on the other hand, would love nothing more than to dictate nearly every facit of our lives to align with his totalitarian and fundamental religious views. He is threat to our beloved market system and has the potential to throw our free market system into disarray. The Bush administration is definitely a much greater threat to our civil liberties than some wacko film-maker named Michael Moore.
Also, there was nothing in his film about the benefits of socialism. Nobody walked away from the film thinking that they should elect the next socialist that was on the ballot. They did walk away with a feeling of distrust for the government, which I view as a good thing.
I am a Libertarian and a moderate. I am tired of all of you people who feel it necessary to constantly bash the other side without looking at the shortcomings of your own whether Republican, Democrat, or Libertarian. If all you can do is spew the most random extremist views possible into blogs or articles or whatever, then you are no better than Mr. Moore. Try and use logic in your lives and in your thought processes. It is amazing what you can accomplish when you actually utilize reason.
Any constructive/skeptical, but preferrably logical, comments are completely welcome.
Jake,
I do not think that the many people on this blog take a political side (even a libertarian one), we do not like Bush any more than Moore. Instead we criticize the fallacies of all statists.
Braden,
That is something that had not occured to me. I guess the previous blogs appeared to pretty slanted against only one side and I wanted to try and find some balance. However, I will take that into consideration when reading and posting blogs in the future. Thanks.
There are in fact numerous people on this site that loved f9/11 for its anti-Bush/anti-war slant. I personally did not see it for fear that I might like it, and liking a Michael Moore film is about as righteous as liking a Britney Spears song.
‘s last comment reminded me of this cartoon;
(Link)
Rock and Roll Confidential has some funny stuff – check out “The Daily Douchebag” (sorry if the title offends)- a huge cache of bad band photos.
Moore can be quite effective, using absurdity to illustrate a point, as he did in “Roger and Me”. He ridiculed what he thought was bad behavior on the part of the auto industry and the government of Flint, MI. But what he didn’t do was go deep enough to find the CAUSE of the hollowing-out of “Big Auto” – the rampant protectionism, the auto union thuggery, the ravenous thievery of the city, state, and federal governments that added up to the implosion of what was once the greatest industry on the face of the earth. Moore’s socialism is part of this blindness, but another part of it is a charge the left makes against Bush – a lack of intellectual curiousity.
Here is another good article on F 9/11 and Moore.
“A Fair Look at Fahrenheit 9/11″(Link)
I enjoyed the review, but had an interesting experience. I shared the article with a non-austrian who had recommended Fahrenheit 9/11 to me. He says he read the review twice and shared it with his wife and son. The three of them discussed it. They could not figure out the point of the article. They are intelligent people. This experience points out to me why it is worthwhile to tailor debates to those who have not been exposed to austrianism.
“Kennedy’s side of the conversation, however, was cut from the film, leaving him looking bewildered and defensive…So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy just stupidly looked at Moore, Kennedy agreed to help Moore.”
If you would of watched the movie you would of known that what Moore set out to do was find out if any member of congress would send their child own child to Iraq. That was the question that was being raised and not whether they have uncles, aunts, or a dog over in Iraq. Thats a huge f*ing difference.
We have a volunteer army. Nobody sends their children over to Iraq. It’s such an idiotic question I bet most of them were just thinking “Who’s this kook”. Especially if they were childless.
Besides they don’t allow “children” in the armed forces.
I bet if you check the proportion of congressional members that have relatives in the Army it is quite high compared to the general population. Not what Michael Moore was implying.
Having seen the movie here in Germany tonight I feel urged to comment on the blog. If you watch it unbiasedly and do not take Moore’s socialist background into the equation then the movie is in vast parts pretty much libertarian. After all Moore is attacking your administration for deceiving the American people. It is also perfectly libertarian to be opposed to goverment’s and big businesses’ pulling together. This is not capitalism as it should be but statist capitalism.
Of course, Moore clearly recognizes the symptoms caused by (any) government. However, his diagnosis leads him to the wrong treatment: Instead of advocating libertarianism he favors socialism, although the entire movie demonstrates perfectly what evil governments do to their people.
” It’s such an idiotic question ”
I think its idiotic to think that its an idiot question. I think you lack the knack for nuance and logic by putting quote around children and than implying that there are no children in the army. In fact I would challenge you to prove to me he how every single person in the Army is not somebody’s child.
“I bet if you check the proportion of congressional members that have relatives in the Army it is quite high compared to the general population. Not what Michael Moore was implying.”
OK check. Some how your hunch is not good enough. And, again, he posed a perfectly clear question. Talking about relatives, dogs, neighbors, and whatnot is irrelevant to his question. We all know that congressional members are patriotic enough to send their relatives into the elite institutions of our military, Naval Academy and such, while the Joe Shmos and moonrise do most of the dirty work and most of the dieing. REAL F*ING HONORABLE!!!!
Gary:
quote:
——
If you would of watched the movie you would of known that what Moore set out to do was find out if any member of congress would send their child own child to Iraq. That was the question that was being raised and not whether they have uncles, aunts, or a dog over in Iraq. Thats a huge f*ing difference.
——
I did watch Moore’s film. Communist rubbish. Quoting from the 59 deceits:
quote:
——
Rep. Kennedy. He did have two nephews in the military, but neither served in Iraq. Kennedy’s staff agrees that Moore’s Website is accurate but insists the movie version is misleading. In the film, Moore says, “Congressman, I’m trying to get members of Congress to get their kids to enlist in the Army and go over to Iraq.” But, from the transcript, here’s the rest:
Moore: Is there any way you could help me with that?
Kennedy: How would I help you?
Moore: Pass it out to other members of Congress.
Kennedy: I’d be happy to — especially those who voted for the war. I have a nephew on his way to Afghanistan.
So while Fahrenheit pretended that Kennedy just stupidly looked at Moore, Kennedy agreed to help Moore.
Notice also how Moore phrased his reply to Stephanopoulos: “Any time a guy like this comes along and says, ‘I told him I had two nephews and one was going to Iraq and one was going to Afghanistan,’ he’s lying.” But Kennedy never claimed that he had a nephew going to Iraq. The insinuation that Kennedy made such a claim is a pure fabrication by Moore.
Fahrenheit shows Moore calling out to Delaware Republican Michael Castle, who is talking on a cell phone and waves Moore off. Castle is presented as one of the Congressmen who would not sacrifice his children. What the film omits is that Rep. Castle does not have any children.
——
Yea, sure, Moore can phrase the question one way. Are you naive enough to think he didn’t do that on purpose? Come on. Cutting off the part about Kennedy saying he’d help Moore, especially since he had a nephew going to Afghanistan, is egregious. Also note that Kennedy’s son is considering a career in the military. No-one can “send” their son to the military — it’s a choice that each individual has to make. Moore is also deceptive in his implication that not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrafice their child in Iraq. Firstly, no-one would (which at least he states). Secondly, he is leaving out an important truth:
quote:
——
Moore declares, “Not a single member of Congress wanted to sacrifice their child for the war in Iraq.”…But the fact is, Moore’s opening (“only one”) and his conclusion (“not a single member”) are both incorrect. Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004. Delaware Senator Joseph Biden’s son Beau is on active duty in the Judge Advocate General Corps; although Beau Biden has no control over where he is deployed, he has not been sent to Iraq, and therefore does not “count” for Moore’s purposes. Seven members of Congress have been confirmed to have children in the military.
——
More of Moore’s lies and deceptions. Hunter’s son, for example, was excluded because he is a 2nd lieutenant, which means he’s a rank above the “enlisted men”. But he’s still serving in Iraq, and was fighting. Also, note that Moore conveniently excludes Cabinet members. John Ashcroft’s son is serving on the U.S.S. McFaul in the Persian Gulf. Why didn’t he consider Cabinet members? Because they didn’t fit his nice little theory. Oh yea, let’s not forget that there are 101 veterans serving in the House and 36 in the Senate. So, regardless of whether or not they’d like their sons at risk, they themselves have put themselves at risk.
Also, I resent your assertion that it’s no big deal to have your nephews and nieces going off to war (Thats a huge f*ing difference). I have two nieces, and it would be horrible if they went off to war then they were older.
None of this justifies the war, or justifies sending anyone off to war. However, the fact that offensive warfare is criminal and atrocious, does not necessarily mean that all Congressmembers who support it are hypocrites, as Moore claims. Whether or not individuals in the government have served in the military, or have family members who have, it does not give them the right to send anyone off to war, or to approve of war (in their functions) in the first place. I don’t like war anymore than the next libertarian, but that doesn’t mean that libertarians should be praising this lying communists work (even in F911, it’s pretty obvious that he thinks we need bigger government and more government).
David,
Your long-winded missive accusing Moore of being deceptive and a communist are nonsense. Think of him as an editorial writer that merely paints the story as he sees it. Conclusion, not one congressman interviewed by Moore would send their child of to Iraq. That fact remains regardless of what you state or think is the case. It’s great that Kennedy offered to help Moore in his endeavor, but Moore is not under any obligation to show the entire interview.
Its kind amusing to see you guys get all worked up over this movie. It brings me tears of joy. It appears the Moore has stumble on the perfect formula ( which has been in use for decades by conservatives) for driving conservative crazy, I hope more people will emulate him. I know the founders of South Park are due to release a movie that pokes fun at the whole war on terrorism, the left, and the right. Kudos to them and to Moore for exposing the absurdities and the cynicism of our political institutions, which in my humble opinion is truly patriotic.
“Also, I resent your assertion that it’s no big deal to have your nephews and nieces going off to war (Thats a huge f*ing difference). I have two nieces, and it would be horrible if they went off to war then they were older.”
Well someone has to die to protect the Bush-cum-Cheney’s oil interests, might as well have it be poor dumb folks down in the Midwest and the South. Only they are stupid enough to join the military in such swarming numbers, being that they lack any economic opportunity under the governance of Republicans.
gary,
Your right, Moore isn’t under any obligation to show the entire interview. In fact, he can cut and paste people’s words to make it seem like they said things which they didn’t say (he did this many times throughout the movie). And no-one here is under any obligation to praise that lying scumbag. Simply because he has the right to make his documentary in any manner he wants to doesn’t mean that anyone else has to praise him. His “work” is crap. Unfortunately, after I just saw the movie, I didn’t know about all of his deceits, so I didn’t demand my money back; if I knew about the real truth, I would have demanded my money back after the movie.
Again, as for the “would send their son off to Iraq”, no-one “sends their son off” anywhere. Those who are in the military chose to be there: their parents didn’t send them off. And your statement is simply a lie. Try reading next time:
quote:
——
“Sergeant Brooks Johnson, the son of South Dakota Democratic Senator Tim Johnson, serves in the 101st Airborne Division and fought in Iraq in 2003. The son of California Republican Representative Duncan Hunter quit his job after September 11, and enlisted in the Marines; his artillery unit was deployed in the heart of insurgent territory in February 2004.
——
Another nice deception by Moore:
quote:
——
Another Bush joke is presented as an obvious joke, although important context is missing. Near the end of the movie, Bush speaks to a tuxedoed audience. He says, “I call you the haves and the have-mores. Some call you the elite; I call you my base.” The joke follows several segments in which Bush is accused of having started the Iraq war in order to enrich business. As far the movie audience can tell, Bush is speaking to some unknown group of rich people. The speech actually comes from the October 19, 2000, Alfred E. Smith Memorial Foundation Dinner. The 2000 event was the 55th annual dinner, which raises money for Catholic hospital charities in New York City. Candidates Bush and Gore were the co-guests of honor at the event, where speakers traditionally make fun of themselves.
——
Yet another one of Moore’s deceptions. No, he’s not obligated to explain the conext. In fact, he can lie up and down, though he seems to be pretty clever at giving an impression which is not the truth, although not technically lying outright. And as a response, I’m not obligated to give any praise to his worthless work.
Again, not to say that I like Bush, or that I support the war, etc (obviously, being an ancap, I don’t). However, Moore is a typical leftist nutcase, who thinks that the answer to all of the world’s problems is more government; so, aligning yourself with him, if you’re a libertarian, is foolish. Secondly, I disapprove of deception and lying:
(1) It is immoral to lie and deceive, even if it benefits your cause. Apparently, you disagree. The means justifies the ends, I suppose.
(2) Strategically, it is a poor move to make. There are plenty of ways to movingly criticize Bush and the war without engaging in deception. Because Moore chose to cherry-pick his facts, take quotes out of context, and use other skillful methods of deception, he comes accross as being nothing more than a worthless liar.
David,
You lack a sense of humor. Moore doesn’t not claim to have concocted some serious piece of journalism, rather he user humor and absurdness to let images speak for them-selfs. I know that Bush only defends the interest of the rich, so showing him at this event is just funny. If you take this movie this seriously by devoting so much thinking to it, well what can I say, you wasting you breath. It just seems that Moore is under more scrutiny than our president. But what people fail to differentiate is that Moore is a comedian and not a journalist. Your attack on Moore is tantamount to criticizing Lewis Black or George Carlin. Don’t waste your time!!!! For those of us that already agree that Iraq is a farce and may even like Moore style this movie is funny and sad. Sure it might get some unsuspected bystanders to believe such and such which might not be entirely accurate. But that’s their own fault for being so stupid and gullible. To me that just shows that our society breeds gullible and bland people.
Ahh, I see that Gary has come to shower us with more wisdom. Thank you Gary.
The real reason why Moore makes movies such as these is not for humor, but I think Gary and Moore’s supporters already know this. George Carlin does not commit blasphemy against the Catholic church for ‘funs sake’. Sometimes the truth is closer to the surface.
And sometimes, people like Moore are nothing but lying miscreants who purposefully choose to try to decieve people. And why shouldn’t they? They have no morals telling them that they shouldn’t. They are Democratic Socialists, much like Gary here – and don’t care much about the morality of their means to achieve their ‘correct’ ends.
I’m not surprised that so many people – Jay Leno, and others – are taken aback and praise the lying and commie that Moore is without any criticism or reflection. The easiest way to get a fool to believe you is to lie to him.
“They have no morals telling them that they shouldn’t. ”
Your moral indignation is heartwarming, but, really, this type of rhetoric might of worked during the Inquisition, however not in the 21st century. And you a wrong, we do have morals. My morals are not grounded is some outdated book written by a bunch of desert dwellers probably hallucinating from too much sun exposure. My morals are grounded in a superiors paradigm of reason, skepticism, empiricism, humanity, secularism, and rationality a.k.a., secular humanism.
“George Carlin does not commit blasphemy against the Catholic church for ‘funs sake’”
Well, surely they deserve it, and are just asking for it, just look at its history. Jesus was a typical Jewish nonconformist and anti-establishment hippie. If he was alive to today he would probably condemn the Catholic Church just as readily as Carlin. And your use of the word blasphemy can not possibly apply to Carlin. It would only make sense if Carlin was an active participant of the Church.
“and don’t care much about the morality of their means to achieve their ‘correct’ ends.”
Sometimes, in order to survive and prevail, one has to out-scheme the other guy. This is how the world works. The Right have been lying and deceiving to get their way for decades. The difference between us and them: we poke fun at how absurd and self-contradictory the other side is, they fear-monger.
Comments on this entry are closed.