Which facts did he "create?" I'm curious.
And, bottom line? GW should not be in office. More people voted for the other guy. And don't give me the "elcectoral college," nonsense, either...the people come from the "wrong" states, so the loser wins? No, sorry. That's just wrong. Most votes=peoples' choice=winner of the election. First graders understand that.
Right or wrong the electoral college is the way it's written, hence the way it works. Regardless of what a 1st grader should know.
It's one of the biggest problems with our system, as its a lot of what ensures a two part system. As changing it would hlep empower 3rd parties, neither side is likely to even think about changing it despite the last election.
2) I agree wholeheartedly that Bush has no business being president (but not that he got it illegaly, jsut that the system sucks) and would love to see him defeated this fall. But that doesn't mean I support someone like Moore with a history of even to his supporters bending the truth to the limits, and to everybody else outright breaking it.
As far as "created" facts note I was referencing other movies of his. Check out the altered text on televisoin clips from "Roger and Me". Not jsut cut together differently, but text outright changed. By his own admission several years after the fact. While the examle is a bit dated, I chose it because it includes fabrications by his own admission. At the point it's OK to outright alter the content of your documentary, you are no longer a documentary filmmaker. Once you lose that credibility, it is very hard to regain it, and as far as I'm concerned Moore hasn't even tried.
I have no problems with him making movies, but his credibility as a documentary filmaker is thin at best. Maybe he's started to straighten out, but I suspect more people are willing to accept his stunts when they agree with the basic premise (that G.W. at a minimum is a disaster that should not be reelected). I happen to fully agree with that, while still thinking Moore (and thus his movies until he proves otherwise) is hardly a credible source for anything. I won't give him the benefit of the doubt just because I agree with him on the main issues.
Please don't make the mistake of thinking an attack on Moore's credibility = support for Bush. Far from it. I would personally love to see some high up members of this administration prosecuted as war criminals under the same rules they seem to think apply to everybody but them. I would further like to see something resembling financial reesponsiblity from our leaders. I think Kerry's a tool too, but I don't think its possible he do a worse job than Bush, as such he'll get my vote. Though being in Kansas means all our electoral votes'll go Republican either way, so it really won't matter. But that's nothing new, and I woudl say the damage by the system ensuring a two party government far outweighs the results of any single election using the system.
Ahso...I was just trying to see where he fabricated facts in this film; maybe after the castigation he's gotten for the earlier films, he's toned it down. I could see obvious misquoting and such...but everything seemed like stuff anyone could find out if they looked for it. Of course, I'm more a movie reviewer than a politcal pundit.
And aye to your other points; seems we agree on basic concept, but vary in detail and degree.
If it makes you feel any better, I'm in Massachusetts. We have more electoral votes than Kansas...and you know they're gonna go Dem...hell, I think Gore got 85% of the vote here...
Yeah, I'm not saying he fabricated anythign in this film. Just that wiht a history of doing so, if I see/hear somehting in this film that I didn't *already* know. Then I have no good way of believing it as new information. Obvioulsy with the caveat that the harder it would be too create/fake in the first place the less I'll question it.
In other words if you do learn anything new from this movie, its difficult/impossible to trust it without further verification due to the source. And if you *don't* learn anything new, then it wasn't worht the price of admission.
As I see it, people blindly buying into anything Moore says are as stupid as those buying into the lies spouted by the administration. He may very well be telling the truth this time, but I am not willing to give him the benefit of the doubt until he works a bit harder to earn it. It's the stuff that seems so easy to verify that often becomes the problem. It seems so obvious that nobody who basically agrees with him bothers to check, and we are so prepared to ignore anything from the other side that even if they correctly point out he's lying very few poeple who believed Moore will buy it due to their history of lying too.
The elcotoral thing mainly pisses me off because I just moved to KS from MI. One of the states votes *do* count in. And because of the wonkiness associated with the whole system, if you're in a so called swing state your vote counts for significanlty more than otherwise. So my vote has gone from darn valuable to next to worthless by so moving. On the plus side it measn not having to hear political ads *at all*. Nobody campaings in KS because everybody know which way it will vote. The only KS campainging was done at teh Brown vs. Board of Education site, and that wasn't actually aimed at KS.
See, now...in this, I learned some things. Which isn't surprising, because in some ways, I'm terribly provincial and existential; if a thing doesn't affect me or I can't affect it, I don't pay attention to it until I can. Added to the disenfranchisement I've felt since Nov. 2000 (all those years of being told that I "can make a difference! Every vote counts" only to learn, hey...my vote's not worth anything), and well...I'm rather a dilettante when it comes to politics. Like a water-strider, I only skim the surface...
Oh, and I added you...
And therein lies the problem I already have with this film (before even seeing it). I am sure I will "learn" something from it, but considering the source can't be trusted have I really learnt anythign at all? Other than what Moore wants me to believe (which may or may not reflect reality).
I think that many of the antibush crowd (of which I an defeinitely one) are willing to ignore the unreliability of the messenger because they agree with the message. And that is where I have problems with this movie right off the bat. Anything learned by watching it is automatically suspect due to the source, but far too many people won't question it because it agrees with what the believe or want to believe about Bush.
I don't know. While I agree that Moore's view is definitely slanted and biased...the "facts" he presents appear to be things that anyone can find out. He's just put them into an easily accessible form. Kinda like Reader's Digest, only without all that downhome "wit."