5th May 2004, 6:04 PM
Michael Moore sucks. Here's my review for class on him:
Now having concluded seeing Bowling for Columbine, I can fully reaffirm what I’d thought of Michael Moore before hand: he is a deceitful liberal charlatan. Is this one-sided swindlerl really the guy whom my university foolishly paid $18,000 AN HOUR to come lecture?
So as not to be like him (one-sided), I’ll concede some points that he made well. People here are compelled by fear to consume. This is a horrible thing, and it consumes our nation. The media industry especially is to blame---that was a good point on his behalf. Every night, the news begins with the day’s murders, car accidents, and defective merchandise recalls. While I cannot speak for the media in other countries, I do find this sad. Mr. Moore would have us believe that all foreign media in all countries centers around same tame things as new speed bumps being installed---a ridiculous claim. But ask yourself this—when you get home from work, would you want to watch a news program that was centered on highway construction footnotes? The news that we watch is sad, and controlling; but it’s what we crave. No one would watch the nightly news if there wasn’t any real news in it. People are psychologically compelled to view and take in violence; it’s in our survival instincts. When he condemns the American media industry as deliberately only showing the violence in the world, he’s right in as much as that they do it to greedily make money---but would you watch the news if they didn’t? That being said, I refuse to believe that the Canadian news has nothing more macabre to report than new speed bumps. If one watched that entire news broadcast (instead of the fifteen seconds he wanted us to see; the fifteen seconds about speed bumps that supports his claims,) we’d certainly see greater similarities between it and ours.
Beyond that one clever observation on his behalf, I found his entire documentary to be an elaborate ruse. He showed what he wanted in his documentary and nothing more; no two sides to the debate. He showed fifteen seconds of Canadian news broadcast to make us believe that all Canadian news is about such criteria. He went to a low-income housing development in Canada that seemed fairly nice by our standards, so that we’d believe that all of Canada lives in pleasant little homes like that. Only a fool would believe that Canada has no slums, and that what he showed us was the worst that they have.
His one-sided liberal bias undermined all of his would-be good arguments. The part that roused the most angst in me was his depiction of white people in general as cowardly, hostile and dim-witted. The cartoon that he showed broadly used the term “white people”, and cast a very poor light on all Caucasians, and thus even himself. He claimed that it was a cute little, brutally honest depiction of the history of the United States—but he once more, only showed what supported his claims. He showed hypocritical settlers who sought freedom from Europe coming to America, and repressing those that they found here. He portrayed that the settlers who came were immediately and openly hostile towards the aboriginal inhabitants; he declined to acknowledge that the first settlers were friendly and pacifistic, or that the first fatality in the new world was from fearful Indians, not the cowardly settlers that he portrays. He furthermore portrays all Caucasians as lazy, with his outrageous claim that ‘white people were afraid of work, and so they went to Africa and enslaved black people.’
He delves deeper into his hidden liberal bias with his portrayal of the single mother of the first grader who murdered a fellow student. In his view, all single mothers are black, and are slaves to the society for having to work off their welfare money. It goes without saying that there are white single mothers who go through the same as those whom he showed in his documentary. Furthermore, it was her own irresponsibility that got her into that situation—as it is with all people of any ethnicity who wind up young, single and with children. Should the taxpayers be obliged to feed and take care of her, and all people like her? I feel that she did have a debt to society; is Mr. Moore really suggesting that she shouldn’t have to work because she has children? Why is he portraying the government as an evil slave driver? He idolizes the young woman as working hard and being industrious—he claims that she works seventy hours a week at two jobs just to pay off her welfare debt. If she’s so hard working, why couldn’t she have worked before she applied for welfare, and thus not have accumulated the debt? Everything can be taken in more than one perspective; and Mr. Moore decidedly declines to show this.
At this point, I will again credit Mr. Moore with another point that he touched upon in Bowling for Columbine. He said that it isn’t the music and games that children play that make them psychotic. I completely agree with him on this remark—psychotic children listen to psychotic music after the fact. It isn’t the music or the games that change children; they’re already demented and then they embrace these. The media would have us believe that it is music and videogames that destroy youth and drive violence into the minds of children. This is not so, and Mr. Moore was correct in my opinion for making this point.
I also found Mr. Moore’s finger pointing at Mr. Charlton Heston, and at K-Mart Corporation as being unbelievably unfair. He someone finds fault for the murders at Columbine with K-Mart corporation for carrying ammunition? That’s not bad logic; it’s horrible logic! If the murders at Columbine had been done not with handguns, but with baseball bats, would he have gone after a sporting goods store? K-Mart in no way was even remotely responsible for the tragedies at Colorado. I believe that the fault rests with the demented duo that performed the acts; and perhaps even with those who failed to report and take action to prevent them.
Mr. Moore also levels a sound charge at all NRA members, and especially Mr. Charlton Heston. Moore once more deceivingly goes around, and selectively chooses what he wants to film. He films redneck NRA militia in Wisconsin. He films a psychotic old man who sleeps with a loaded revolver under his pillow; and then the madman playfully puts the gun in his mouth. Mr. Moore would have the viewers believe, therefore, that all NRA members must be deranged. Is it a coincidence, or planned occurrence, that no normal, sane NRA members made it into Mr. Moore’s final cut?
All of these topics were woven into his documentary with clever, subtle references. Mr. Moore decidedly dropped psychological ‘Easter eggs’ around his movie to help coax the viewer to his point of view. He appears in the documentary, as he wants you to see him: he’s unshaven, he’s dressed in cheap attire, and he presents himself as the average, hard-working American. He’s trying to appeal to the common tax-paying American, and so he presents himself as one. But does the average American make $18,000 an hour? Also, if Mr. Moore is so virtuous and good, why wouldn’t he make these tours to places of education for charity? The fact is that Michael Moore made $35,000 for two hours’ lecturing here at UMASS Dartmouth. The average entire income for a real American in the United States in 2003 was $36,300---for an entire year’s worth of hard work.
Another of his ‘psychological Easter eggs’ was a piece of pure theater. As he exits the Charlton Heston estate, Mr. Moore decidedly chooses, on camera, to leave a large photo of the young first grader who was murdered. He does so in silence, with a certain aura of injustice in the world. Should we deduce from that, as he wants us to, that Mr. Heston was at fault for her murder? Stricter regulations on the purchase of firearms wouldn’t have help that poor little girl; it was the other child’s idiot uncle who left the fire arm in the open, and fully loaded for the taking.
In conclusion, I declare Mr. Michael Moore less of an eye-opening leader in journalism, and more of a conceited, wealthy liberal who is merely seeking to further his political ambitions: namely his war on guns. My final word is this: Mr. Moore seems to think that he knows where the blame is, and he cites many causes. But he fails to suggest a solution. All he truthfully does is reproach the Caucasian ethnicity, gun advocates, and the United States government.
Now having concluded seeing Bowling for Columbine, I can fully reaffirm what I’d thought of Michael Moore before hand: he is a deceitful liberal charlatan. Is this one-sided swindlerl really the guy whom my university foolishly paid $18,000 AN HOUR to come lecture?
So as not to be like him (one-sided), I’ll concede some points that he made well. People here are compelled by fear to consume. This is a horrible thing, and it consumes our nation. The media industry especially is to blame---that was a good point on his behalf. Every night, the news begins with the day’s murders, car accidents, and defective merchandise recalls. While I cannot speak for the media in other countries, I do find this sad. Mr. Moore would have us believe that all foreign media in all countries centers around same tame things as new speed bumps being installed---a ridiculous claim. But ask yourself this—when you get home from work, would you want to watch a news program that was centered on highway construction footnotes? The news that we watch is sad, and controlling; but it’s what we crave. No one would watch the nightly news if there wasn’t any real news in it. People are psychologically compelled to view and take in violence; it’s in our survival instincts. When he condemns the American media industry as deliberately only showing the violence in the world, he’s right in as much as that they do it to greedily make money---but would you watch the news if they didn’t? That being said, I refuse to believe that the Canadian news has nothing more macabre to report than new speed bumps. If one watched that entire news broadcast (instead of the fifteen seconds he wanted us to see; the fifteen seconds about speed bumps that supports his claims,) we’d certainly see greater similarities between it and ours.
Beyond that one clever observation on his behalf, I found his entire documentary to be an elaborate ruse. He showed what he wanted in his documentary and nothing more; no two sides to the debate. He showed fifteen seconds of Canadian news broadcast to make us believe that all Canadian news is about such criteria. He went to a low-income housing development in Canada that seemed fairly nice by our standards, so that we’d believe that all of Canada lives in pleasant little homes like that. Only a fool would believe that Canada has no slums, and that what he showed us was the worst that they have.
His one-sided liberal bias undermined all of his would-be good arguments. The part that roused the most angst in me was his depiction of white people in general as cowardly, hostile and dim-witted. The cartoon that he showed broadly used the term “white people”, and cast a very poor light on all Caucasians, and thus even himself. He claimed that it was a cute little, brutally honest depiction of the history of the United States—but he once more, only showed what supported his claims. He showed hypocritical settlers who sought freedom from Europe coming to America, and repressing those that they found here. He portrayed that the settlers who came were immediately and openly hostile towards the aboriginal inhabitants; he declined to acknowledge that the first settlers were friendly and pacifistic, or that the first fatality in the new world was from fearful Indians, not the cowardly settlers that he portrays. He furthermore portrays all Caucasians as lazy, with his outrageous claim that ‘white people were afraid of work, and so they went to Africa and enslaved black people.’
He delves deeper into his hidden liberal bias with his portrayal of the single mother of the first grader who murdered a fellow student. In his view, all single mothers are black, and are slaves to the society for having to work off their welfare money. It goes without saying that there are white single mothers who go through the same as those whom he showed in his documentary. Furthermore, it was her own irresponsibility that got her into that situation—as it is with all people of any ethnicity who wind up young, single and with children. Should the taxpayers be obliged to feed and take care of her, and all people like her? I feel that she did have a debt to society; is Mr. Moore really suggesting that she shouldn’t have to work because she has children? Why is he portraying the government as an evil slave driver? He idolizes the young woman as working hard and being industrious—he claims that she works seventy hours a week at two jobs just to pay off her welfare debt. If she’s so hard working, why couldn’t she have worked before she applied for welfare, and thus not have accumulated the debt? Everything can be taken in more than one perspective; and Mr. Moore decidedly declines to show this.
At this point, I will again credit Mr. Moore with another point that he touched upon in Bowling for Columbine. He said that it isn’t the music and games that children play that make them psychotic. I completely agree with him on this remark—psychotic children listen to psychotic music after the fact. It isn’t the music or the games that change children; they’re already demented and then they embrace these. The media would have us believe that it is music and videogames that destroy youth and drive violence into the minds of children. This is not so, and Mr. Moore was correct in my opinion for making this point.
I also found Mr. Moore’s finger pointing at Mr. Charlton Heston, and at K-Mart Corporation as being unbelievably unfair. He someone finds fault for the murders at Columbine with K-Mart corporation for carrying ammunition? That’s not bad logic; it’s horrible logic! If the murders at Columbine had been done not with handguns, but with baseball bats, would he have gone after a sporting goods store? K-Mart in no way was even remotely responsible for the tragedies at Colorado. I believe that the fault rests with the demented duo that performed the acts; and perhaps even with those who failed to report and take action to prevent them.
Mr. Moore also levels a sound charge at all NRA members, and especially Mr. Charlton Heston. Moore once more deceivingly goes around, and selectively chooses what he wants to film. He films redneck NRA militia in Wisconsin. He films a psychotic old man who sleeps with a loaded revolver under his pillow; and then the madman playfully puts the gun in his mouth. Mr. Moore would have the viewers believe, therefore, that all NRA members must be deranged. Is it a coincidence, or planned occurrence, that no normal, sane NRA members made it into Mr. Moore’s final cut?
All of these topics were woven into his documentary with clever, subtle references. Mr. Moore decidedly dropped psychological ‘Easter eggs’ around his movie to help coax the viewer to his point of view. He appears in the documentary, as he wants you to see him: he’s unshaven, he’s dressed in cheap attire, and he presents himself as the average, hard-working American. He’s trying to appeal to the common tax-paying American, and so he presents himself as one. But does the average American make $18,000 an hour? Also, if Mr. Moore is so virtuous and good, why wouldn’t he make these tours to places of education for charity? The fact is that Michael Moore made $35,000 for two hours’ lecturing here at UMASS Dartmouth. The average entire income for a real American in the United States in 2003 was $36,300---for an entire year’s worth of hard work.
Another of his ‘psychological Easter eggs’ was a piece of pure theater. As he exits the Charlton Heston estate, Mr. Moore decidedly chooses, on camera, to leave a large photo of the young first grader who was murdered. He does so in silence, with a certain aura of injustice in the world. Should we deduce from that, as he wants us to, that Mr. Heston was at fault for her murder? Stricter regulations on the purchase of firearms wouldn’t have help that poor little girl; it was the other child’s idiot uncle who left the fire arm in the open, and fully loaded for the taking.
In conclusion, I declare Mr. Michael Moore less of an eye-opening leader in journalism, and more of a conceited, wealthy liberal who is merely seeking to further his political ambitions: namely his war on guns. My final word is this: Mr. Moore seems to think that he knows where the blame is, and he cites many causes. But he fails to suggest a solution. All he truthfully does is reproach the Caucasian ethnicity, gun advocates, and the United States government.
H.R.M. DARVNIVS MAXIMVS EX TENEBRIS EXIT REX DEVSQVE GORONORVMQVE TENDORVM ROMANORVM ET GRÆCORVM OMNIS SEMPER EST