Keith Devens .com

I think that the only thing that Michael Moore's film will end up being (though I don't think this is his intention) is a farce on the media and how they can cut their footage to sway the minds of Americans. Essentially, from what I understand, Moore has basically taken press footage and pieced it together to tell his "opinion." He's done it well, too, because he's already received a lot of attention at Cannes. But, what it truly points out is that footage can be arranged and cut in such a way that it tells a story entirely opposite of the truth.

See also <i>Limbaugh, Rush H.</i> or <i>Coulter, Ann</i>

Both conservatives and liberals have their demagogues, neither of which serve to raise the tone of the debate.

It's definitely not fair to Limbaugh to put him in the same category as Moore. I'll object a little less about Ann Coulter, but still... Moore's in a class by himself. I wouldn't even lump Chomsky together with Moore.

It definitely is fair to lump Limbaugh with Moore, he's taken more than his share of unfair shots at people over the years distorting, misrepresenting and selectively quoting people out of context when it suits his own ends.

I know you think he's "positive", but he's not so positive when he's kicking people on issues only to revel that he was in the same position and did the same thing himself. Making fun of AIDS victims back in the 90's only to be booed by the entire audience of the Pat Sajack Show which he was guest hosting.

Or his diatribes against people on welfare, only to reveal that he himself was on welfare for a couple of months while out of work. Then there's the fact that he had to be shamed into registering to vote at the age of 35, having never voted for any conservative president, including Reagan.

We'll skip over the drug addiction as that's more of a character flaw than rank hypocrisy, but the list goes on and on and on.

I will say this though, Rush is starting to slow down in his old age, he's getting tired and I'm sure that his recent third divorce isn't helping things either. Not to worry Sean "Just pretend I never said it" Hannity is eager to step into Rush's expensive shoes.

Hannity is hilarious when he gets going on Iraq, if you listen to what he said just a few years ago about the US involvement in Kosovo you can actually hear him talk out of the other side of his mouth. Those who protested about that action were engaged in a "responsible criticism of the government." Fast forward to a Republican in the White House and those who protested against US involvement in Iraq are "disloyal and hate America."

Yeah, that's fair and balanced.

There's a simple rule when it comes to politics, if someone is making money from it, chances are they are telling some group of people what they want to hear not what's really going on. And that goes for all sides.

There's no serious thought coming from any of those people, Moore, Limbaugh, O'Reilly, Franken, whoever. It's just brainless politainment.

Quite frankly I'm glad Moore is making his film. He's forcing people to take a closer look at the issues at hand. Since we know he twisted a fiar chunk of the "facts" in Bowling For Columbine I'd be interested to see what holds up and what doesn't when the movie hits the box offices.

He's exercizing his right ot free speach, all be it he's taking a very aggresive tone, but good for him. I hope he sparks some serious conflict in the minds of people who see it. Certinly he's going to sway people of a lesser political awareness or education to the anti-Bush side but all the Republican party would have to do is strike back with their own film that is equally aggresive. Even better, a counter film could take the high road and provide serious facts that are backed up by members of each party.

What I'm getting at is I like to see conflict, it forces people to search for the truth and it sparks change. Even if Moors film turns out to be dead on it would force the Bush camp to strive harder and would cause the Republican party to re-evaluate its position and ethics. We have to keep the long run in mind here. One victory for either side this election isn't going to alter our great nations course perminatly. The more we work to change, learn, and improve the better our political parties will become.

Instead of merely painting Moore as a raving lunatic, I'd prefer to see a rebuttal on the (alleged) facts he has presented.

Christopher Hitchens has a much-linked-to article that covers this ground, which I have yet to read in full: Unfairenheit 9/11: The lies of Michael Moore

Also, Jeff Jarvis has a definitive review of the movie.

However, one of the biggest problems with Michael Moore is what he doesn't say. Not only does he leave out any notion of balance or fairness in his "documentary" (it is therefore more akin to propaganda), but much of his content is presented through emotional appeals rather than through facts and reason, and much of his "argument" is conducted mostly through elipses. In other words, Moore will make some vague reference to something that might be part of some argument, yet leave the meat of the argument for the viewer to discern himself. Moore therefore relieves himself of the responsibility to present a sound case, yet he moves forward anyway pretending he did.

Ultimately, he hopes his audience won't notice. It seems he really does take to heart his statement that "(Americans) are possibly the dumbest people on the planet ... Our stupidity is embarrassing." Given that's what he believes, I wouldn't expect a reasonable presentation from the man.

I'm thinking like you not only because of the movie, but because of all the outlandish stuff being said about President Bush. At some point, I think he begins to seem unfairly treated and an "underdog" of sorts. We all know how people love an underdog!